Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Ross Cranston: Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your election.
In this my maiden speech, I pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, Dr. John Gilbert, who represented the Dudley, East seat for 27 years. He represented the people of Dudley conscientiously and, when I was campaigning, he was often mentioned by people who came up to me in the street and commended him for the help that he had given them. I congratulate him on his recent appointment as Minister of State and on his imminent appointment as a life peer.
I now also represent two wards that were represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson)—indeed my friend as well—and I pay tribute to him. At a national level, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This country is fortunate in having such a bold, dynamic and visionary leader, and the extent of my party's victory turned on his leadership. It also turned on the efforts of many others, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, with his robust good sense, his background in the Labour movement and his energy, and many ordinary members, including the members of the Labour party in my constituency. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on her appointment. The House is fortunate that the initiative for its reform is in such good hands.
I have the honour to represent Dudley, North. It is a tremendous privilege to have been elected to serve the people of that part of the black country. The region is replete with history, which dates back to prehistoric times. Castle Hill and Wren's Nest contain a unique collection of prehistoric fossils and an application has been made for world heritage listing on that basis.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, the name "the black country" derives from the time of the industrial revolution. In the 19th century, the region was a powerhouse of economic activity. It is a history of a great people who take pride in their contribution to this country's modern development. Much of that 19th-century industry has gone, but my constituency can look forward to the new millennium with confidence under a Labour Government, who are prepared to provide support for local initiatives. The Castle Gate project is just one example. The site, designed for high-tech industries of the 21st century, will now go ahead.
We should not forget that the past 18 years have not been kind to many of my constituents. Older people have suffered in particular and unemployment, especially among young people, is far too high. I therefore welcome the Government's commitments to improve public services, the national health service and social housing, and, in particular, their undertakings on the training and employment of young people. The Labour party believes that services provided publicly, by the community, are a way of ameliorating inequality, which has been so accentuated in the past 18 years.
Before the House adjourns, I should like it to consider a number of matters. The first relates to the Government's policies to address crime. When I was campaigning during the election, I found that youth crime was of particular concern to many ordinary people. In some cases, they may misperceive the problem, but crime is an objective reality. In his recent pronouncements, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has built on the well-accepted criminological truism that certainty is as important as severity in deterring crime. That is why fast-track punishment is important. Offenders have to be sure that they will be caught and punished quickly—it is as important as what happens afterwards.
Several years ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister coined the phrase "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The causes are many. Government policies on employment generation for young people are linked to our crime prevention policies. People without hope, or a future, or who are alienated from society, are more likely to commit crime.
A number of points have struck me as I have sat in the Crown court as an assistant recorder, and now a recorder, for the past six years, although I hasten to add that my experience is limited. The first is the complexity of matters. The former Home Secretary traded in simplicities. He also rejected the findings of research, even research from his own Department. It is no wonder that those at the coal face of the criminal justice system—the judiciary, including the higher judiciary—have resoundingly rejected his approach.
Secondly, I was struck by the fact that so much crime is drug and alcohol related. A number of hon. Members have said the same and mentioned the irresponsibility of some parts of the drinks industry. I agree that something must be done.
A third point that has struck me is that many people who appear before me in the Crown court have not had a decent start in life. We see that in the pre-sentence reports. That certainly does not absolve them from responsibility for their acts but it means, as the Prime Minister has said, that we must tackle the causes as well as the manifestations of crime.
Before the House adjourns, I should also like it to consider the recent pronouncements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One announcement concerned the operational independence of the Bank of England. The main Opposition party has taken issue with that on the basis that the decision was taken without parliamentary debate or statement, but it is in the nature of such things that events move quickly. In fact, it was an astute move. It back-footed the markets and richly deserves the praise that it has won. It is consistent with international developments in the operation of monetary policy and it also puts us in a position to comply


with the Maastricht treaty should we decide to be part of the European single currency. There will still be accountability through the Monetary Policy Committee and a more representative Court at the Bank. More important, the Government will continue to set the inflation target.
I was gratified to hear the Governor of the Bank of England say last week:
What we are about is growth and employment, but we are about that in the medium and longer term. Low inflation with steady growth is what we are on about. An inflation target is not an end in itself but very much a means to an end.
I welcome that statement; it is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is seeking to achieve.
I have been fortunate to serve on several International Monetary Fund missions to central banks in Asia and eastern European countries. I have to confess that sometimes the Governor's realistic appraisal of goals was rather lost in the concern for price stability. In countries with rampant inflation, price stability must be an overriding factor but, as the Governor has rightly said, and as the Chancellor has also made clear, the central goals must be growth and employment with stability, as the Chancellor has said, a platform to those ends.
I hope that before the House adjourns it will take into account the various matters that I have mentioned.

Dr. Evan Harris: It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the eloquent and detailed maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). I hope that my contribution will match his in eloquence and content.
It is a privilege to represent the beautiful constituency of Oxford, West and Abingdon. I am the first Liberal to sit for Oxford since a certain Mr. Frank Grey, who won in 1922 and 1923. On both occasions there was a two-party contest between the Liberals and Conservatives—a luxury that we can no longer enjoy. Unfortunately, Mr. Grey was unseated after an election petition, the charge—or at least the allegation—being that he tampered with the signals on the railway to prevent a train carrying Conservative voters from arriving from Oxford and disgorging its contents. It seems that 70 years later, the previous Government found an even more effective way to stop people going about their business on the railways through their privatisation programme.
In representing Oxford, I am also following the late Evan Luard who was latterly a member of the Social Democratic party, which I also joined. We therefore share not only a relatively rare first name, shared as far as I know in political circles only by the son of the new Prime Minister, but our political beliefs. He was followed by my immediate predecessor, the right hon. John Patten.
John Patten was considered a controversial Member of Parliament, yet he was and is well respected in the constituency for his courtesy to his political opponents and his constituents and for the effective and prompt way in which he dealt with constituency matters. Although I might not agree with much of what he said during the years that he served the constituency, I pay full tribute to his record as a constituency Member of Parliament and his record of standing up for what he believed in,

even though it might court controversy. I hope that in also making a stand on things that matter to me, I can follow in his footsteps.
Oxford, West and Abingdon has many claims to fame. Because of its old and beautiful university, it has perhaps more libraries than any other constituency, more chapels and, of course, more bars and pubs. Indeed, I served my political apprenticeship 10 years ago among those chapels, libraries and bars. That allows me to note now the colleges of Balliol, Brasenose, Corpus Christi, Christ Church, Exeter, Hertford, Jesus, Keble, Kellog, Lincoln, Linacre, Lady Margaret Hall, Mansfield, Magdalen, Manchester, Merton, New college, Oriel, the Queen's college, Regent's Park, St. Anne's, St. Antony's, St. Catherine's, St. Edmund Hall, St. Hilda's, St. Hugh's, St. John's, St. Peter's, Trinity, University, Wadham, which is my own fondly remembered alma mater, Wolfson and Worcester.
The risk in that recitation of the oft-travelled canvass trips is that I may have missed some out, but I must pay due respect to the voters of those colleges—first-time voters at that—who, in large numbers, decided to return a Liberal Democrat. Partly it was because they recognised the importance for the future of this country of investment in education, not only in school education from which many of them benefited in the state sector, as I did in Liverpool, but in higher education.
Before the House adjourns, it is important that we consider the future of higher education. The university sector is under great pressure with the unit of funding having been reduced serially since the expansion of numbers, which was welcomed by all, but which was significantly underfunded. The threat of the end of free education for a first degree, for young as well as adult learners, should be treated with grave concern.
Access to higher education is already restricted to those well enough off to ensure that they can get through their university days without descending into poverty or those perhaps able to take out loans contingent on the fact that they are entering professions for which the remuneration will be sufficient to pay off those loans. The concern is that we not only damage access for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, such as people who went to my own comprehensive school in Liverpool, some of whom I know had to drop out of university education because of the cost, but close off access to higher education for those pursuing careers that are less well paid. In many cases, young graduates find that they cannot consider entering a career in the caring professions or in public service.
Hon. Members have expressed great concern about the recruitment levels of those entering the teaching or nursing profession, entry to which now usually requires a degree. Labour Members will be interested to know that, in my own profession, the starting salary for junior hospital doctors for out-of-hours work is around £3.50 an hour. They should be concerned that those who are treating, out of normal working hours, the sick and the most vulnerable in society are among the lowest-paid in the country.
I was proud to represent junior doctors in my trade union—the British Medical Association—not only in Oxford, West and Abingdon, but across the south-east. The BMA has pressed for due consideration of not only terms and conditions of employment but the work load


that has fallen upon those who are working in the acute hospital sector. I include in that sector the legion of managers who now work in the health service. When I started on the wards, one would never see a manager beyond the normal working day on the wards of my local hospitals, the Radcliffe infirmary or the Oxford Radcliffe hospital. Even managers, however, are now pressed into action, when patient waiting times become too great. Managers, rather than junior doctors, are working hard to find beds—which are often in short supply—in which to place patients until an appropriate management plan can be made.
Before the House adjourns, I hope that we resolve to tackle the problems of the acute hospital sector, for the benefit not only of patients—who are feeling the effects of the excess work load placed on those working in the profession and of shortened hospital stays—but of those working in the hospital sector, on whom the national health service, which is under great pressure, must rely. Those people are doing ever more overtime and working ever harder, for seemingly less and less reward.
It is a pleasure for me to represent not only my fellow trade unionists within the medical profession but all my constituents in Oxford, West and Abingdon. People in my constituency have an outlook that extends not only to their own city and country. My constituency is the home of the Oxfam charity, and its university is the home of several third-world organisations. They look beyond our shores to think of people who are less well off than ourselves.
During the general election campaign, I made a pledge—which I hope to implement—to ensure that, when considering how to redistribute our country's resources, we not only think of the people of these islands, but consider how we can ensure that the world in which we live can be a fitter place, in which resources are shared more fairly between the first world and those in less developed countries. If I have a part to play in achieving that goal, I shall have served my constituents proud.
It is an honour to have been elected to the House, and I hope to be able to raise all these issues in this Parliament.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate both you, Madam Speaker, and the President of the Council. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on their maiden speeches. I hope that I can follow in the same, successful vein.
I pay tribute to Den Dover, the former hon. Member for Chorley, who represented the constituency for the past 18 years. He worked hard in the general election campaign, and one must always remember that he was a dedicated Member of Parliament. Before him, George Rodgers—a Labour Member—served Chorley well. From 1945 to 1969, Clifford Kenyon—a renowned name in the Chamber—served Chorley as one of the greatest ever Members of Parliament. His knowledge of farming was unquestionably renowned.
I should also like to thank my father, Doug Hoyle. He was a Member from 1974 to 1979, representing the old Nelson and Colne constituency. He then went on to serve, from 1981 to 1987, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North, where my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) represented the adjoining constituency.

My father has since been elevated to the House of Lords. I wish him well, and I thank him for all the support that he has given me.
It is a privilege to represent Chorley, the town of my birth. Perhaps uniquely among hon. Members, I was born in my constituency, and I have always lived and worked in it. I am therefore very proud to have been elected to the House to represent my home town.
Chorley is an historical market town. It comprises more than 50,000 acres—from lowland, near Southport, to the west Pennine moors—and 23 parishes, and it has a population, which is rising, of 96,000. We had much manufacturing, from textiles to such famous companies as Leyland, Royal Ordnance and Horwich Locomotive Works. Although the latter was in Bolton, West, it still employed thousands of people from all over the area, including Chorley. Almost all those companies have now gone.
Royal Ordnance was most recently in the news as a dumping site for bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected animal offal, thereby serving as a double symbol of Tory failure. The borough unemployment rate now averages 4 per cent.—which is very low—but it is low only because more than 50 per cent. of the working population travels outside Chorley to work, as most of our manufacturing has been destroyed.
Other areas have severe unemployment, which is sometimes 12 per cent. or higher. Recent job losses have included those at NORWEB, GPT, Perrite and John Willman. Well-known companies across the country are still shedding jobs, and that is the danger. I am confident that the Government will deal with the danger.
A recent survey in Chorley showed that more than half the job offers in our jobcentre were for part-time employment. The average weekly wage for those jobs was £103, and one job was advertised at £1 per hour. Such a situation is disgusting and unacceptable in a modern society. We will be a modern society, and we will redress that imbalance. A minimum wage is crucial to achieving our goals.
How personal and national economic security can be obtained under current economic circumstances is inconceivable, and I await the Government's establishment of a commission to examine a minimum wage. Some private utilities earn in a few seconds as much as some people earn in a lifetime, yet they refuse to contribute—as detailed in the Government's finance plans—to the effort to put young people back in work. Our Government have a mandate to achieve that goal.
I was chairman of Chorley borough council's economic development and tourism committee, and I helped to bring investment to Chorley, by working with businesses and showing them the attractions and benefits of what we have to offer.
The Royal Ordnance site, which is now essentially derelict, once employed 30,000 people. Now it offers a few dozen jobs. By maximising the site's potential, we are finally returning investment to our area. We are delighted that the Computer Science Corporation has chosen a redundant building on the site as its base, thereby creating 400—mainly highly skilled—jobs. Over the next four years, Latham, Crossley and Davies, a major Chorley accounting firm, plans to expand, thereby creating 200 new jobs. An extension is also planned to Ackhurst business park, which should create another 130 new jobs.
Those developments were aided by the economic development unit, which plays an active, interventionist role in Chorley business. It does not tell business how to run itself—it works with business to create the economic conditions that business requires. Every week, we visited firms to talk and listen to them and to provide them with contacts with councillors and officers, with whom they could deal directly in the council. As the hon. Member for Chorley, I shall maintain those links and work hard for business and for the local authority. For many years, it has been a revelation in Chorley to have a public-private partnership—which is one basis of the Government's industrial strategy—instead of pitting one sector against another.
I also helped to found the Chorley partnership, to join businesses and community leaders in working together for the town's social and economic development.
Chorley has lacked support from central Government. To have a progressive Government who share our aims will give a major boost to my area. The creation of regional development agencies will be a massive improvement. Chorley's economic development unit dealt with 442 inquiries last year. Most people were seeking advice on sites, on property available in the locality and on potential sources of financial assistance. Little assistance has been available, however, because the previous Government did not believe in it. It is a crying shame that the previous Member of Parliament thought that assisted area status would do nothing for Chorley. I hope that we can redress the balance and put Chorley on a level playing field with neighbouring areas so that we can improve it for the benefit of the people who live there. My experience of Chorley's economic development unit has shown me that development support is exactly what business wants and needs. The creation of a regional development agency will meet that objective.
It is appropriate that Europe should be dealt with at the same time as the economy; they are inextricably linked—one cannot have one without the other. The previous Government did not believe in Europe, so we profited little from the support available while every other country in the European Union did. KONVER is available to areas such as Chorley, which has seen a rundown in its defence industry, yet because of the previous Government's lack of belief and interest, we received hardly any aid to which we were entitled.
What was more shocking was the fact that the rules that applied to parts of the midlands and the south-east were different from those applied to the north-west. There could be 50 per cent. funding in the south-east, but only 35 per cent. in the north-west. There is something tragically wrong about being able to divide the country so easily. If one was cynical, one would assume that it was a political decision.
KONVER money has always been important to us. In 1996, we put in for a £3 million grant from KONVER II—which was a continuation of the old peripheral areas programme—under the auspices of the Chorley business technology centre, to assist with an £8 million development scheme for part of a 1,000 acre site in Chorley which is contaminated, but which can be used for business. We received little support from the Government. The bid was scaled down to £1 million and then to

£500,000, concentrating exclusively on managed workshop facilities at the Chorley business technology centre. It will do little to regenerate the massive Royal Ordnance site, but if we get the money, we shall at least have some start-up units for new businesses.
It is pointless to be a member of the EU when so much of what is available from membership is going begging because the previous Government's ideology was opposed to its positive aspects. By maximising our return from the EU in terms of grants such as KONVER, we can invest in sites, such as the Royal Ordnance site, which have massive potential. Those sites are existing industrial areas that can be developed without damaging the environment or contributing to urban sprawl. That must be of benefit to everyone.
I am delighted that we now have a Government who are committed to getting the most out of the EU by working with their partners and taking all to which we are entitled. I shall lobby Ministers hard to ensure that Chorley's case is heard and to support the early creation of regional development agencies, which will do so much to improve the economic success of regions such as the north-west.
I hope that the Royal Ordnance site will become a flagship for the whole of the north-west. It must be one of the biggest brown-field sites in the UK. It will benefit the whole of the north-west, it is well placed between two major motorways and it has a railway line running through its centre. We have a great opportunity to save green fields and to create new jobs for the north-west as a whole.

Mr. David Amess: It is a great honour to follow three splendid maiden speeches. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), I find myself having to respond to all the maiden speeches although I am not able to speak twice on this occasion. I will, however, deal with the three maiden speeches that we have heard so far.
These occasions should be special for hon. Members who are speaking for the first time. As the House knows, maiden speeches are the only occasions on which Members are listened to without any interruptions. It is a great occasion when people who have worked hard to be returned to the House speak for the first time.
I greatly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). It is clear that he feels passionately about issues in his constituency and I am sure that his constituents will not be disappointed by his plans to raise matters on their behalf in the years ahead. I am sure that he and his supporters are proud of his efforts today.
We then heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). It was a most fluent speech and it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of many issues. I know that the whole House will look forward to hearing from him in the future.
I, too, pay tribute to the former Member of Parliament for Oxford, West and Abingdon—John Patten—and my hon. Friends and I greatly appreciated the tribute paid to him by the new hon. Member for that constituency.


The hon. Gentleman referred to John Patten as "controversial" although I am not sure what that means these days. I believe that John Patten came to the House because he believed in things: he was a conviction politician. Every Member of Parliament is entitled to express his or her views. John Patten is a great loss to this House. He added something to all our debates—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members may disagree, but I believe that he is a great loss to this House and I am delighted that he will still serve in the Palace, albeit in the other Chamber.
With regard to the splendid speech by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the hon. Gentleman's father had not alerted me to the fact that his son would be following him to the House. I knew the hon. Gentleman's late mother, who would have been proud of him, and I am sure that his father is proud of his speech today. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about the area that he now represents. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey and I also greatly appreciated his tribute to our defeated colleague, Den Dover. Den was a friend of mine and in the 14 years during which we were together in the House I saw that he worked very hard on behalf of his constituents. He raised constituency issues on every possible occasion and I believe that he is a great loss to this House.
I praise the three splendid maiden speeches this morning. The Leader of the House may smile, but the tradition is that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial. I normally do not have a good word to say about either the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but on this occasion I will honour the tradition and will not comment in any shape or form on the points made in those maiden speeches. I wish the three hon. Members well and I wish every success to those who have still to make their maiden speeches.
I wish to raise a number of points. The first concerns all the nonsense about Myra Hindley. I hope that the media will not waste days on end arguing the merits of whether she should eventually be released into society. There are many more important issues about which our constituents are concerned. I hope that this issue will pass in a day because I would regret our spending a great deal of time on it.
Secondly, there was an impression that the Labour party campaign was to a certain extent financed by the trade unions. In the course of this Parliament we shall find out the truth of the matter. I am, however, very concerned about a newspaper that is being distributed. I shall not name the source of my information or the name of the company concerned, but within two weeks of the election a newspaper has been distributed among workers in a company which is a very large employer. The newspaper talks about "the workers' fight" and says that big business is backing Downing street. It refers to Labour's drive against the poor and goes on and on about how the Labour party has already sold the workers out. We can argue about the merits of that later, but it would be a great mistake for individuals in the work forces of some of our large employers to stir up trouble within two weeks of the election—they should compare the state of the British economy in 1997 with how it was in 1979—so I hope that we shall hear no more of that nonsense.
My third point concerns my constituency. I pay a warm tribute to the former Member of Parliament, now Lord Channon, who represented the constituency for nearly

four decades. I know him very well. Whatever anyone says about him, I discovered during the election campaign that even if he did not court great publicity he was highly regarded by his constituents. Like people in every other constituency, the people of Southend, West have every right to be represented by the Member of Parliament whom they choose. He was a splendid Member of Parliament and I am delighted that he will still be serving the country in the other House.
I want to raise some brief issues concerning the constituency. The first relates to houses in multiple occupation. In parts of Southend, West, particularly Westborough and Chalkwell, many large properties have been turned into houses in multiple occupation. Last year I served on the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill, which gave local authorities the power to set up proper registers and to deal with matters relating to houses in multiple occupation sensibly so that licences are no longer handed out in the cavalier fashion in which they had been given in the past. During the election campaign, I found that some properties were not fit to be determined houses in multiple occupation. The situation has caused great upset to many neighbours.
Southend council has 18 Conservatives, 14 Liberal Democrats and seven Labour members. At least in the local elections there was a swing to the Conservative party. At first we were told that the Labour and Liberal Democrat members would work together, but the latest news is that the Labour party has apparently decided to pull out of the arrangement and will determine its stance on each matter as it comes up. Whoever is prepared to run Southend council, I hope that the Housing Act 1996 will be honoured and that there will be careful determination on houses in multiple occupation.
The next issue that I wish to raise relates to the cockle industry. I am honoured to represent Leigh-on-Sea and the cockle industry is important to my constituency. The fishermen played their part in the second world war, using their vessels to defend their country, and they are an important influence in the local community. The Leader of the House will not have time to deal with the matter in this debate, but I hope that she will ask her officials to find out what is going on.
Before the general election I met the then Minister with responsibility for fisheries, and we are particularly concerned about the Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1994. I am told that the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee is implementing the order, but honouring that legislation is causing great distress. The Leigh-on-Sea Shellfish Merchants Association has always recognised that the local fleet is more than capable of outfishing cockle stocks and it has always tried to co-operate with the KESFC on sensible measures to preserve the fishery. Since the order came into effect, however, the KESFC has increased the number of licence holders by granting licences to applicants with dubious track records—or even no track record at all—and the business of law-abiding cockle fishermen is being damaged. I hope that the Leader of the House will find time to get her officials to investigate that.
The penultimate issue that I wish to raise concerns schools. I do not want to start a row in the Chamber about education—I shall save that for another occasion—but in my area we have many grant-maintained schools and selective schools. As I understand it, the Labour party fought the election campaign on the express promise that


if local residents wished to continue to have selective schools, their wish would be honoured. I also understood that the new Government would do nothing to damage grant-maintained schools or, more importantly, the education of children. I have already had one or two letters from head teachers. They do not wish to argue, but simply ask for clarification—I do not believe that we have yet had a debate on education—about what will happen to grant-maintained and selective schools in Essex.
My final point concerns private care homes. You are a fellow Essex Member of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituency has nearly 100 private care homes. We can argue with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats about the whys and wherefores of private care homes, but we have a crisis at the moment in Essex. I hope that the Leader of the House, through her officials, will be able to tell us what is happening about that issue.
We have a crisis of bed blocking and rapidly increasing numbers of elderly people. There are many people in local hospitals who should not be blocking beds there, and there are many empty beds in private care homes which would cost less than caring for those people in the public sector. More than 80 beds are blocked in Southend hospital. Essex county council is controlled not by the Conservative party, but by a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition. We have a Labour Government as well, so for goodness' sake let us sort the matter out. Some 90 per cent. of those people in hospital are awaiting social services funding for long-term care or community care packages. Half of the surgical wards are blocked with medically fit people awaiting discharge.
Whatever the arguments about the whys and wherefores, the situation is not good enough for the relatives who love those people who are in hospital at the moment. This is not the time to argue about the political merits of the matter. Those people may not be with us for much longer. I am simply asking that the new Government get in touch with the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties on Essex county council and do their best to sort the matter out, because there is a crisis. When relatives get around to finding out what the doctor recommends, they eventually get what they want, but it is taking an awfully long time. Many have already come to my surgery saying, "Our relatives are getting on in years and may not have much longer; we want to ensure that they are treated properly." The problem of bed blocking should be addressed urgently.
Finally, I congratulate all those who have made maiden speeches today or whose maiden speeches we shall hear shortly.

Liz Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on their fine maiden speeches—they have made my job all the more difficult. I also thank the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for his kind remarks.
It is a great privilege to make my maiden speech at this early stage and I am delighted to be here as the first Labour Member of Parliament for Erewash. I hope that the electorate's new practice of returning Labour Members will continue for many years to come.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Angela Knight, who represented Erewash from 1992 until this year. She was an extremely doughty campaigner who worked with commitment and enthusiasm to serve local people. During her last two years in the House she was a Treasury Minister. I wish her well.
In the short time that I have been attending Parliament, the two most frequent questions that I have been asked are, "What constituency do you represent?" and, when I reply, "Erewash," the inevitable supplementary is, "And where exactly is that?"
Erewash is in south-east Derbyshire. It lies between the cities of Derby and Nottingham. At either end of the constituency are the principal towns of Long Eaton and Ilkeston. In between, there are several villages and some very pretty countryside. The economic base of the area was founded on traditional industries—notably mining, heavy engineering and lace-making. Those industries have contracted over the years and the necklace of 12 coal pits which surrounded Ilkeston is no more.
Erewash was therefore a suitable case for widespread industrial inertia, but people have not permitted that to happen and there is extraordinary diversity in the local economy. Light engineering and textiles—including lace—are still major industries, but they operate at the cutting edge of modern technology. Furniture-making, information technology, service and distribution industries are all to be found there.
Stanton Ironworks is an excellent example of an industry that has moved with the times. It has a proud heritage going back more than 200 years, yet today it is Britain's largest manufacturer of ductile iron pipelines. I understand that Yorkshire Water placed a bulk order with the company last summer and I suspect that several other water companies will become familiar with its range of products in the coming months.
The wider site has been subject to reclamation and offers considerable potential, with improved rail and motorway access—a development that I support.
Many successful local firms export widely in Europe and welcome the Government's intention to complete the single market and to be at the heart of Europe arguing in the best interests of British jobs and business. They agree with Adair Turner that our constructive membership of the European Union is vital to their well-being.
I pay tribute to the local partnership, which is an exceptional example of its kind. It has co-ordinated many effective initiatives by pulling together the public, private and voluntary sectors and maximising local resources. Its current project—Erewash learning community—puts learning at the heart of local economic development policy. Recently, it came close to winning the prestigious Local Government Chronicle award for the business partnership of the year.
There are, however, factors in play which have not supported local prosperity. They include the boom-bust climate of the past few years, red tape, late payment, lack of investment, poor work standards, low pay and skills, and long-term youth unemployment. I am pleased to support a Government who find those problems unacceptable and are committed to their improvement through forthcoming domestic legislation and by signing up to the social chapter.
I particularly welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to education as the Government's first priority. Having taught for nigh on 25 years, I know that education,


like no other process, develops high self-esteem and a sense of empowerment that allows the learner to play a full part in society. I applaud the raft of Government proposals to raise the quality of education for all our children and stress the importance of consultation in that process. Teachers are desperate for a constructive dialogue and I take the view that to listen first is a strength and not a weakness and leads to better decisions.
An increasing number of disaffected pupils attend our schools and I had the responsibility for working with some of them. Teachers need support to meet that challenge, not only for the sake of those children, but for those who are more predisposed to learning and for society at large. I also pay tribute to the many excellent schools and teachers in my constituency who do well by their pupils despite grappling with large class sizes and crumbling surroundings.
When I was on a public platform during the recent election campaign, I was asked by a local councillor to define poverty. He had written down the figure that he wanted to use to challenge my anticipated response. In my definition, I talked about the inability to take advantage of opportunities to make progress and a sense of hopelessness. His face went blank as it became apparent that those concepts were completely beyond his understanding.
Good skills, a decent job and the ability to plan for the future are shared goals. They allow people to feel part of society and play a part in it. Achieving sustained economic prosperity built on the proposals outlined in the Gracious Speech will sow the seedcorn for an inclusive society. I support the Government's proposals because they will allow our country and its people to prosper in the widest sense of the word and I look forward to playing a small part in delivering a programme that I know will benefit the people of Erewash.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I understand her difficulty in constantly having to explain where her constituency is. When I explain that Hazel Grove is in Stockport, people say, "Yes, I went there once for a holiday, but the sea is rather a long way away, isn't it?" I then have to explain that it is not in Southport but in Stockport, so I share the hon. Lady's problem.
It is a privilege to represent the constituency of Hazel Grove, which stretches from the centre of Stockport to the boundary of the Peak District national park. It has a number of small communities which were founded on water power and then on coal power. Some people are surprised to learn that until recently it also had a major steel works. The area has had to undergo a sometimes painful transformation from a series of small industrial towns to a commuter district for Greater Manchester.
Paradoxically, although my constituency includes a number of small towns and is called Hazel Grove, it does not include half of Hazel Grove. It contains Marple, Marple Bridge, Romiley, Woodley, Bredbury and part of Offerton, but only a small part of Hazel Grove, including the railway station. I therefore have the problem that not only do people outside the constituency not know where the Hazel Grove constituency is, but people in Hazel Grove do not know where it is either. They are all united, however, by their support for high-quality education.
Stockport borough council, on which I am privileged to serve, has a deservedly high reputation and is high in the league table of examination results at primary and secondary school level. One of the issues that I shall be putting to the House is that Stockport should receive extra funding for education and be the subject of a review by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in due course.
Hazel Grove is a commuter area, so a great deal of attention is focused on the problems of travel, public transport, road transport and rail links. Some of us have been campaigning for additional rail links to complete the rail network. I intend to focus on road schemes, the problems of public transport and the need to balance more effectively central Government investment in transport. Commuter areas also face environmental problems caused by air pollution, vibration and traffic noise. My constituency has one of the first fully automated air quality monitoring systems in the United Kingdom on the busy urban A6 that passes through Hazel Grove. The results of that monitoring, which have now been available for some six months, show scientifically what my constituents have known intuitively for some time—that air quality in the area is well below the standards set both by the United Kingdom and by the European Union.
My constituents also have concerns about the national health service. We have problems with the dermatology unit, on which I have been able to work with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). There is a shortage of intensive care beds. Hon. Members may remember the tragic case of Nick Geldard, a young boy for whom an intensive care bed could not be found in the whole of Greater Manchester. He was driven by ambulance to Leeds, some 52 miles away, where he was declared dead on arrival.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) had to say about blocked hospital beds. I am happy to report that the issue does not face us in Stockport at the moment. However, we should bear it in mind that our social services department has had to take cuts of £4 million in this financial year and that one of the predicted outcomes of that was an increase in bed blocking simply because assessment procedures could not be carried out in time. Those cuts were brought about not because of the Liberal Democrat-led administration, nor as a result of the votes of the Labour opposition, and certainly not because of the votes of the two remaining Conservative councillors, but due to the reduction in central Government funding for social services in Stockport—a matter that I shall certainly wish to bring before the House in due course.
In making his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) referred to development agencies and opportunities to boost employment. That is certainly a concern, and one that I shall wish to see supported. It is a matter of regret to me, however, that we have only a development agency and that there has not been a real transfer of power and decision making to democratically elected representatives in the north-west, which is what we believe is necessary.
I have outlined briefly some of the key concerns of the constituents who have sent me to the House to represent them: education, the problems of the NHS, and issues relating to public transport and employment. I hope that the House will not mind my mentioning briefly—so that the Leader of the House can hear—one of my concerns.


Having entered the House as one of a greatly enlarged number of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament—in fact, more than 50 per cent. of the Liberal Democrat Members are new to the House in this Session—I should like to mention briefly one or two of the difficulties encountered by new hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeking to represent our constituents effectively.
I am happy to report that I now have a desk and an office, but I am not so happy to report that I cannot have a telephone for another week or 10 days. That is just one aspect of the way in which, in considering not just the impact of a new Government and a new Parliament but the effectiveness of democratically elected representatives entering the House, we can in future take more care and put in more preparation to ensure that Members are able to take up their duties promptly and effectively.
In representing Hazel Grove, I have the privilege of following two very distinguished predecessors. Dr. Michael Winstanley, a Liberal, represented the constituency briefly in 1974. He later became Lord Winstanley, and sadly died last year. From October 1974 onwards, the constituency was represented by Sir Tom Arnold, who gave twenty-two and a half years' service to the House. Courtesy of the Library, I discovered what he said in his maiden speech during a debate on the European Community in April 1975. He made a very strongly pro-European speech. Those who remember his later days, supporting an alternative Conservative leadership bid last summer, may be a little surprised to hear that. Things change—the teller for the Ayes at the end of that debate was Madam Speaker herself, while one of the more prominent Noes going through the Lobby was the present Deputy Prime Minister. We must therefore recognise that, in politics, things change over time.
Sadly, Sir Tom has been very seriously unwell over the past year and had to stand down before the election. It is a privilege to represent Hazel Grove. I hope very much to follow in the tracks of my two distinguished predecessors. I hope that I can show the care, compassion and persistence of Michael Winstanley and repeat the tenacity and length of service of Sir Tom.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate during which there have been so many impressive maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has already dealt with the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I associate myself with the remarks that he made about those speeches, which were all very impressive. I should like to refer to the two fine maiden speeches made subsequently.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) represents an area not too far away from North-East Derbyshire. He mentioned that the Peak district is on the boundaries of his constituency. The Peak district extends a short distance into north-east Derbyshire, too. It is a beautiful area in which we both have considerable interest. He stressed environmental concerns. The environment in the area is very attractive, yet he identified environmental problems in his constituency, as I certainly

do in mine. Although I was politically active in my constituency when I was first a candidate and then its Member of Parliament, I was surprised to discover the depth of environmental problems that were impressed on me. I have always played a very active role in such matters, so the hon. Gentleman and I may well find ourselves with various common interests.
The House always takes well to kind remarks made about predecessors such as the immediate predecessor of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, Sir Tom Arnold, especially when hon. Members realise that the remarks are genuine and not merely a form of words.
I must also compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on her maiden speech. It is quite appropriate for me to compliment her since I am a fellow Derbyshire Member of Parliament. The kind words that she said about Angela Knight are appreciated. No one more than myself would argue and dispute many of the positions and lines that Angela Knight took. We all recognise that Angela Knight was a serious hon. Member representing serious interests on behalf of her constituents.
The interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and I directly linked on environmental matters when she referred to Stanton plc. I have a Stanton plc unit in my constituency. We have had problems with dioxin in the area, which was traced to the Stanton unit. Investigations in the Erewash area revealed similar problems. The problems were tackled, which shows that serious investigations into environmental matters enable us to discover what action is needed to correct such problems. They were corrected in both cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash also mentioned her experience in education. We have serious concerns about education in Derbyshire. In North-East Derbyshire, we have 45 primary schools, 41 of which—four small village schools apart—have a problem with class sizes. Those schools have classes of more than 30 pupils, and some have 40, 42 and 44. Therefore, Labour's commitment to tackling class sizes is very important. The other key to tackling education problems in Derbyshire is the future of the standard spending assessment and its calculation. Both my hon. Friend and myself are greatly concerned about that, and I am sure that we will unite to press the Government to correct the formula for Derbyshire.
All the maiden speeches have been fine speeches. In debates with short speeches, most hon. Members do not usually pay attention to what others are saying because they are waiting to say their own bit and get away. On this occasion, some fine maiden speeches have grabbed the attention of established hon. Members. Many of us feel that we need to look to our laurels with so much talent around and displayed in those speeches.
I wish to speak on a matter that I raised at the end of the previous Parliament, and I wish to continue to press the issue. Electoral registration involves a massive shortfall and we need a new, up-to-date system. On that issue, I am a Labour party moderniser, although some might dispute that title in connection with some of my other ideas. If we had had a modern electoral registration system for the election, many of those enfranchised would have been more likely to vote for Labour than for the previous Government. Our victory at the election would have been even more astounding if we had had an effective electoral register.
I was disappointed that it took so long to get hold of the figures for the numbers registered in each constituency at the end of the last Parliament. That information was provided only the day before the Parliament ended and I sought an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20, because the figures were as bad as in previous years. The problems that I had highlighted in the House on many occasions still existed.
People may think that the urgency has gone from the issue because the election has passed, but it is still important, not least because of the debate that we will have this afternoon. If we are to have referendums for Scotland and Wales, we should ensure full registration. If, as some people suggest, thresholds are to apply to the referendums, the percentages should take account of the fact that the registers contain many redundant names.
The new Government need to clarify their position. The 1993 Plant report, which was presented to the Labour party, argued for a modern, rolling electoral register. I have explained the principle behind a rolling register to the House on previous occasions and, when we were in opposition, my colleagues on the Front Bench made some commitments to that idea. However, the rolling register and modern electoral registration techniques were not part of the "Road to the Manifesto" and were not in our actual manifesto. I was disappointed that those ideas were not discussed in the constitutional talks that were held with the Liberal Democract party before the election. I was also disappointed that the Liberal Democract party did not press the issue, because it had given solid support to my proposals for a rolling register.
I hope that we can now begin to prepare the ground for a new electoral registration system. I have often argued that 3 million to 4 million people are missing from the electoral register. We now need some investigation and research to check out that claim. I hope that the Home Office will undertake a thorough investigation of the arrangements for the general election, including registration. I would like the Home Affairs Select Committee, when it is appointed, to instigate a report to investigate the issue.
In 1991, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys produced a report which has been very useful to me in my arguments about the numbers missing from registers. I hope that the Office for National Statistics will now update the work that was done in 1991.
I have asked Members, through The House Magazine, for any information that they have from canvassing returns that shows how many people on the registers have died or moved, how many are not registered and whether any other problems were discovered. I will deal with the information in confidence if necessary because I am interested only in the global figures. That evidence could form part of the investigations by the Home Office and the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I am convinced that the evidence will show the need for a rolling electoral register that puts people on the register when they move into an area and deletes their names when they are no longer there. It is nonsense that people who have died are left on electoral registers. Unless we take great care, we send electoral communications—even special postal shots on specific issues—to people who have died. However, councils receive regular weekly information from the registrars of births, deaths and marriages so that people can be

excluded from council tax and housing benefit. The changes could also be made to electoral registers, if we kept rolling registers.
We also need to begin to register homeless people. The legal definition of who can be included on a register is a problem because people must be residents. Residents have to have a residence and, by definition, a homeless person does not have a residence. Homeless people should be included on registers even if they have to use accommodation addresses, hostels, benefit offices or other places as their residence. The Home Office could make a difference by issuing an early circular to returning officers to make a liberal interpretation of the current law, but the wording of the law will need changing in the future.

Mr. Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend intends to increase opportunities to register, but does he agree with the proposition that no one should be forced to register? If he does, we have a problem in defining how many people are missing from the register. Those who do not wish to be registered are still counted in the some 4 million who are unregistered. Is there any way to distinguish between those who are not on the register through lack of opportunity or being thwarted by the system and those who do not wish to register?

Mr. Barnes: I want to do everything possible to give people the opportunity to register. Information about people moving could be made available to returning officers and requests to be registered could be fulfilled. As the law stands, a person can be fined £1,000 for failing to register. The offence is dealt with fairly leniently; I do not remember the last case in which a charge was brought—and I would not encourage that to happen. On the other hand, the fact that the provision remains may provide an extra pressure towards ensuring that people register.
Certainly there should be plenty of imaginative publicity about the need to register, and the importance of registration. People cannot even exercise an abstention, or show their abhorrence of politics in general, if they do not register, so as to show that they are among the genuine people who have not voted on a particular occasion.
The other electoral matter that needs tackling is access to polling stations for disabled people. I hope that that, too, will be taken up during the investigations. Scope and other bodies have produced valuable information about that problem. When I raised the subject during business questions, the Leader of the House pointed out some problems caused by the size of the ballot paper. In North-East Derbyshire the names on the ballot paper for the parliamentary election were in very small print, and it would have been problematic for a partially sighted person to read them.
Action must be taken. I have presented to the House many measures, such as ten-minute Bills and other private Members' Bills, both on the rolling register and on access to polling stations, although not yet on provisions for the homeless. I hope that the Government will give such matters serious consideration, so that by the next general election all the problems will have been resolved.

Mr. David Heath: It is a great honour and privilege to be making my maiden speech, and to be following a parliamentarian of such distinction


as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). He invited the Liberal Democrat party to support his views on registration, and although it would probably be inappropriate for me, as a new Member, to commit my party to that view, personally I saw a great deal of sense in what he said. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and will wish to pursue them.
I represent the people of Somerton and Frome, a constituency that forms a large part of Somerset, stretching from the northernmost tip, at Norton St. Philip, just outside Bath, to Beercrocombe, just outside Taunton, at the other end. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mark Robinson, who served his constituents as an assiduous Member of Parliament, supporting them in dealing with their personal problems and doing all that he could to help them.
Mark Robinson also demonstrated over many years a genuine commitment to overseas development. He was parliamentary private secretary to Lady Chalker for many years, and although his commitment to the cause was not always reciprocated by his Front-Bench colleagues, it was notable and praiseworthy.
I also offer my sympathy to my predecessor and his wife in that we had such a tight vote in my constituency; the majority was 130. No human being should have to go through three counts. Whether one wins or loses, it is a tiresome occasion, and one is pleased to come out at the other end.
Historically, Somerset is a radical county. Some have described it as a county of revolting peasants, but that is a calumny. None the less, we have a tradition of independent thought and nonconformity, and of questioning the establishment wherever that may be, especially when it resides in the home counties.
We demonstrated those characteristics in no small degree in 1685, in Monmouth's rebellion, the last major rebellion on English soil. Many people in Somerset, myself included, are the direct descendants of rebels who took part in that rising.
Nowadays Somerset is a rather more peaceful place. Somebody once described it as characterised by cheese and churches, cider and smugness. I do not disavow the first three, but as for smugness, if we are smug it is simply because we have so much to be smug about in the beauty of the western counties.
I could indulge in a travelogue about the constituency, but that would take a long time because it is so large. Moreover, the names of many of the villages that I would encompass would be unintelligible to the Hansard reporters. Kingsbury Episcopi, Isle Abbotts, Charlton Horethorne and Wyke Champflower are all lovely villages, and I could go on at length about their merits.
However, suffice it to say that the constituency that I represent has an interesting history, because of the many events that have taken place there. It also has an industrial history. For instance, it is a coal-mining constituency. Labour Members may not readily recognise that fact, but Somerton and Frome was a coal-mining constituency until 30 or 40 years ago, when the mines were closed.
Frome, the major town in the constituency, was a wool town, much despised by a former parliamentarian, William Cobbett, as the "Manchester of the south". Wool was a significant trade there in its time.
My constituency also once contained many islands, although now the levels have largely been drained, and one can get from island to island while staying relatively dry. However, once one had to take a boat, and there are still times when the Somerset levels revert to their previous condition and become the great mere of Somerset again.
Current industries range from quarrying—something that we have in common with the Derbyshire Members who have spoken this morning—to agriculture, and to the high-tech defence-related industries in some parts of the constituency. There is an enormous diversity of approach across the area.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) made his maiden speech the other day, he told us much about the merits of the city of Colchester, but as he sat down he said, sotto voce, that he had omitted to mention Queen Boadicea. Let me mention her now, because hon. Members will know that there is a statue of Boadicea, or Boudicca, on Westminster bridge. That statue was cast in Frome, and is a lasting mark here in Westminster of my constituency.
Over the centuries there has been a Liberal tradition in my part of Somerset. I am certainly not the first Liberal to represent at least part of the present constituency of Somerton and Frome. Indeed, there was a famous by-election victory in 1910, when Lloyd George spoke in the Wesley chapel in support of the candidate, who went on to win and take part in the great reforming Government of the early years of this century. Let us hope that that Government, and the 1946 Government, which many will remember, will not be the last reforming Governments in this century.
Thomas Hughes was once the Liberal Member of Parliament for Frome. He is famous for having written "Tom Brown's Schooldays", but he went on to become one of the founding members of the Co-operative movement, and so forms part of that radical tradition that informs west country politics.
New Members will all have listened with great interest to the debate on the Gracious Speech. As we demonstrated during that debate, there is much in the speech that Liberal Democrats can commend. But there are also gaps, which we shall seek to fill as the Parliament continues. For my constituents, one of the great tests will be not the intention—the intention is demonstrably good—but the outcome. We want to see whether the measures will actually make a difference for the people whom we represent.
Let me illustrate a few of the areas in which we shall make that test. The first, which has already been mentioned many times, is education. I am a former chairman of the Somerset education committee, and I do not believe that Somerset schoolchildren have been given a fair deal over recent years. This year's county council budget8—set a few months ago—is the first for eight years without a real-terms cut in school funding. The reason for that is that Somerset was one of those rare authorities that felt unable to meet the demands of the capping regime of the previous Government. Here is an early test of the new Government's commitment to education. Will they impose a Conservative cap that will result in 90 teachers being sacked in Somerset?
Somerset is not an extravagant authority—historically, it is a low-spending authority—and it can demonstrate beyond peradventure the efficiency and effectiveness of


its education service. Its education service boasts the lowest administrative costs of any authority in the country, and it delegates more money to its schools than practically any other authority. It has the lowest number of surplus places in its primary schools of any county in England, and it tops up the Government's standard spending assessment by taking money from other areas in the council's work—for example, road repairs, some of which are badly needed—to a greater extent than any other county authority. That will be a test of whether the Government are committed to "education, education and education" and whether the money that they intend to release from the assisted places scheme will make any difference in a county such as Somerset, which is already so near the bone as far as education expenditure is concerned.
We will be looking for capital expenditure. Somerset maintains 267 schools, but last year was permitted to spend only £2 million on their upkeep. What commercial business would dream of running an estate of that size with that amount of capital reinvestment? It is a nonsense in education and business terms.
Let me move to the police. I served for a time as chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority, and I remember regular visits to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Home Secretary. I do not know whether he was engaged in "semantic prestidigitation" at the time, but whenever we asked for 100 extra officers—the minimum the chief constable required to police the rural areas of Somerset properly—the answer was no one year, the next year and the third year. Again, this will be a test for the new Government. Will there be more police officers on the streets of Somerset as a result of the change in Government, or will their rhetoric mean nothing?
The third test will be the environment, which was strangely absent from the Gracious Speech. Why was that? Is it no longer to be a priority? If so, we Liberal Democrats will have a great deal to say about that. One environmental test will be the Government's housing allocations and whether they wish to see the continuation of the proposed suburbanisation of Somerset. I have the greatest regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and his constituency, but Surbiton and Somerset are different places and we do not want to see Surbiton replicated in our rural county.
Finally, I refer to the health service. We shall be looking for an NHS dentistry service. There is no longer such a service in Frome, as we have lost the last dentist offering NHS treatment. Will the service be restored? I am an optician by training, although I am not practising. Will free eye tests—a single preventive measure that would make a real difference to the health of a great number of people—return? Incidentally, free eye tests would save the health service a great deal of money in the long term by preventing diseases such as glaucoma by catching them early, rather than in their operative stages. Will we see a commitment to local hospitals—such as those in Wincanton which are currently under threat—and to acute services?
In a maiden speech, it is nice to be able to range over a wider area than is normal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—my constituency neighbour—has, for my sins, asked me to speak on Europe in the next few months. When I do so, I shall be arguing for a radical reform of the common agricultural

policy and the common fisheries policy, and for the informed consent of the peoples of Europe to any changes resulting from the Amsterdam summit. I shall argue for a genuine commitment to subsidiarity at all levels—European, national and local—and for greater accountability within the structures of Europe, but that will wait for another day.
Suffice it to say today that I am proud to represent my constituents in Somerset. I am a Somerset man, and I will unashamedly support the interests of the people of Somerset in this House. I look forward to an interesting time over the next few years in the hope that the great expectations raised by the election are not disappointed by the performance of the Government in attempting to realise their intentions.

Lorna Fitzsimons: May I start by paying tribute to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who reminded me of a previous Liberal Member of this House, Clement Freud? We could perhaps adopt the hon. Gentleman as a Lancashire man because of the similarities between his constituency and mine. I did not know about those similarities before he made his maiden speech, but they are amazing—the Co-operative movement, wool and cotton provide a bond between us, although not a party political one.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who referred to electoral registration and access for disabled people to democracy. Those two issues came up time and again during the general election campaign and, as a new hon. Member, I will be looking forward to the Government taking a keen interest in them. Although we had a wonderful turnout in Rochdale among young people and first-time voters, it is clear that much work has still to be done on the issue of electoral registration.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire also referred to the sincerity of tributes. I should like to talk about three previous Members for my constituency, as they are the three who have represented me since I was born and brought up in the Rochdale constituency—Liz Lynne, Sir Cyril Smith and Jack McCann. First, I should like to pay a sincere tribute to Liz Lynne. Although she was not Rochdale born and bred, she showed in her five years as our Member of Parliament that one could have an impact nationally and locally as a new Member of Parliament. Liz did a lot of pioneering work, especially on one of her dear subjects—disabled people. I hope to continue locally and nationally the good work that Liz did in that area, and in many others. Many people felt fondly about Liz, and I wish her well.
There is a joke in Rochdale—a polite one of course—that any public occasion to which I am invited with Sir Cyril Smith is a bit like "The Little and Large Show". I know that it is meant with great affection for Sir Cyril, who is an incredible act to follow. There are many ex-Members of Parliament, but Sir Cyril has a place in the history books and an honoured place in the history of Rochdale. The reason he was successful—bar party politics in Rochdale—was that he was a man of the people. Some criticised him for staying in Rochdale, but it meant that there were not many there whom he did not help in his 20-year career. If, in my time as a Member of


Parliament, I can help as many people as Sir Cyril did, I will feel that I have done the job that the people of Rochdale sent me here to do.
A quarter of a century on, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the debt of thanks that I should pay to the last Labour Member of Parliament for Rochdale, the late Jack McCann. Although Jack was the first Member of Parliament for my constituency I knew—I am fibbing really as I was a tad too young really to have known him—I got a full picture of Jack McCann the man and the politician on the doorsteps. Lots of Rochdalians—generally older people—truly remembered the man and felt proud to have known him. They loved him—they loved his honesty and felt that he truly worked for Rochdale. That is what I hope to continue.
Rochdale has a proud tradition of what I would call quirky characters as its Members of Parliament and I hope to follow in that tradition in some way—although I am only 5 ft tall, I do not need a microphone. One of the most moving occasions during the election campaign was just before my adoption meeting, when I received a telephone call at our campaign headquarters. I was asked, in an agile voice, "Can I speak to Lorna Fitzsimons please?" The caller introduced herself as Alice McCann, Jack McCann's wife. She was bright as a button at the age of 83 and raring to go, asking, "When can I come and help? We've got to make sure we return a Labour MP this time. Twenty-five years on, it's about time." She painted the most beautiful picture of Rochdale when Jack won his by-election. She said that it was amazing; it was two weeks after the Munich air disaster. One can imagine what it was like in Rochdale. God bless Rochdale football club, but the majority of people actually support the Reds. The tone in the town and the country was very sombre and we were knee deep in snow in one of the worst winters, but the atmosphere after the by-election was electric with hope and optimism—the real attitude that Rochdale and true Rochdalians embody. That is what brought home to me the character and spirit of Rochdale.
I have the greatest pride in representing my home town. Under the new boundary changes, my village of Wardle and that of Littleborough have been brought into the constituency. Being able to say that I was born in a local hospital, Birch Hill, went to one of the new local schools—Wardle high school—and then worked in the constituency gives me a great heritage and an advantage in understanding the needs of the constituency.
Rochdale has a rich tapestry, whether in textiles, in which I am proud to be a skilled labourer—I did a degree in textiles and followed in my father's footsteps as he worked in the mills—or in brass bands. A little-known fact about me is that I am a secret horn player, or was when I was at school. I am proud to say that at the car boot sales in Rochdale there are one or two copies of the LP to which my name is attached. There is also the attitude of the people. They have warm, open hearts and they are honest. We might be a bit blunt now and again, but we are honest, warm and welcoming. The people are vibrant and colourful.
At the heart of the town—in the centre—we have a huge Asian population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the

curry mile in his opening speech on the Loyal Address; we have our own curry street in my constituency. Asian small businesses are at the heart of rebuilding Rochdale.
Rochdale has many expectations of this Government, and quite rightly. In the past 18 years, it has paid the price for the lack of investment, especially in our manufacturing base and our young people. The textile industry has been decimated. There is now a new drive, with a new Member of Parliament, a new leader of the council and a new team forming to put Rochdale back on the map where it should be, right at the heart of the economic and industrial revolution. I want to be known as the person who helped Rochdale to be the economic gateway to our liberation.
The other travesty of the past 18 years that Rochdale has had to witness is youth unemployment. The people of Rochdale are talented and hard working but, sadly, they have not had the opportunities—especially the under-25s—that they should have had. As a new constituency Member of Parliament, one of the big challenges for me is to provide opportunities through the much needed welfare-to-work programme outlined in the Gracious Speech. I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that all the needy young people in Rochdale get a chance at a real job or training opportunity to change the cycle of despair. On some of our estates—the Kirkholt estate, to name one—there is now much hope.
Everyone might think that The Sun or Alastair Campbell coined the phrase, "The Blair babes". Rochdale would like to think that it got there first, because we have a group of women called the Brimrod babes. They do not know that I am mentioning them in my maiden speech. Much has been made of the number of women Members in this new Parliament. I want to pay tribute to my Brimrod babes—the women who live on one cul-de-sac on a council estate. They are grandmothers, mothers and daughters—three generations—who have never had any formal education, by which I mean further or higher education, or been involved in politics. They were captivated. I do not know what happened precisely to their awareness, but watching my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the run-up to the general election, they decided to get active. They taught me many lessons about not presuming things about people. They liberated themselves and they helped me to get elected. I would take anyone who is in any doubt about the importance of this Parliament to their cul-de-sac and their homes. The way in which they have learnt that they can change their own lives and that we can help them is amazing. If, in my time as Member of Parliament for Rochdale, I can show the courage that they have shown to overcome their inhibitions and lack of confidence and get involved, I will be proud of what I have done.
Rochdale has a lot to offer economically, socially and culturally, such as in helping and guiding our quest to ensure that everyone in the world has access to human rights. Hon. Members who know that we have a large Pakistani community will understand the importance of Kashmir to the people of Rochdale. Our history is one of wide openness and of welcoming people of all races, creeds, countries and colours to Rochdale. That means not only that charity starts at home, but that we must remember that we cannot settle unless our sisters and brothers in Kashmir and elsewhere have access to democracy and human rights. The commitment to human rights made by my right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary and in the Gracious Speech was welcome to my constituents.
The other welcome commitment in the Gracious Speech concerned health. Like many other constituencies, Rochdale has a health care crisis. It is a crisis not in terms of bed blocking, but in that we have a mortality rate 10 per cent. above the national average. That is a travesty. The people of Rochdale, therefore, welcome the new Government's commitment to health care. For the first time, there is a Minister with responsibility for health in the community, who can tackle some of the problems that are causing deaths in Rochdale.
The crisis is such that we desperately need the private finance initiative to work. The people of Rochdale need accessible health care, and one of the most exercising points of the campaign in the past six months and beyond was the future of Rochdale hospital. I shall work alongside the new Front-Bench team and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the private finance initiative works.
Because of the way in which the country has been run over the past 18 years, there is not enough money in the public purse to make the investment that we know is needed in our health service. The people of Rochdale have journeyed to the practical conclusion that they therefore need a successful partnership with the private sector; that has not been easy for some of them, but they have been courageous and know that all solutions must be considered. I hope that in this Parliament I can show the same ingenuity in seeking solutions to problems in my constituency and further afield.
I pay tribute to the people of Rochdale who voted for me as one of the younger new Members of Parliament, proving that young people have a voice right at the heart of Government and can effect change. If I can in any way emulate the history of those people who have worked in Rochdale for a better Britain, I shall truly have been a good parliamentarian.

Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak so early in this Parliament; with so many new Members coming in at the general election, I had visions, or perhaps nightmares, of making my maiden speech some time around Christmas, so I am delighted to get in.
It is an honour to serve in the House, with the tradition and history that it oozes—I thank first the members of the Jarrow Labour party who nominated me and the constituents who voted me into this splendid House to represent their interests—but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take on board some changes that could be made to improve its functioning. I draw attention to the voting system in particular. I read recently about schools being failed after a visit from a group of inspectors; if that group studied our voting system, we would certainly be failed automatically. That should be considered, but I leave it in the hands of the Leader of the House.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Don Dixon. I am in a good position to do that, as I am a good friend of his and have known him for many years. Many hon. Members will know Don; he certainly stamped his authority on the House in his role as Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. He came from a traditional, humble background in Jarrow. He had a basic education; worked in a shipyard; came up through trade union politics; became leader of Jarrow

council; and was elected to Tyneside council, transforming the whole of south Tyneside with his vision of council housing. He was then elected to the House in 1979, and served it well.
The great thing about Don was that he set great store by loyalty; he has shown loyalty to all those who know him, to the Labour party and, as I know for a fact, to the House. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties respect the job that he did, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for recommending his early elevation to the House of Lords; we in Jarrow see that as a tribute to Don, and we take it as a tribute to the people of Jarrow.
It is customary for new Members to speak about the constituency for which they have been elected. Once again, I am in a fairly good position, as I was born, bred and educated in Jarrow and know the town very well, but the constituency contains not only the town of Jarrow but the town of Hebburn; the villages of Boldon, Cleadon and Whitburn; and the new ward of Wrekendyke, which was transferred in the recent boundary changes.
My constituency is, of course, very famous in Labour history. It was built over the past century on a heavy industrial base on the Tyne. Sadly, that base declined through the 1980s. The last coalfield in Jarrow has closed, as have the steel industry and most of the shipping industry. With those closures, I am sad to say, many good, hard-working, decent people were discarded and told, "We no longer need your services, thank you very much." That is and always will be a tragedy and a message about what happened in the 1980s.
If there is one message that I would like to get across in this maiden speech, it is the need for jobs in Jarrow. It is very sad that, last Monday, yet another Jarrow march set off, this time on the way to Europe, nearly 61 years after the first Jarrow march, when Ellen Wilkinson and 200 men from Jarrow walked to London in the search for jobs.
At the meeting to see the marchers setting off for Europe on Monday, I expressed the hope that it would be the last march to have to leave Jarrow in search of jobs. Remember that the marchers who left on Monday left with exactly the same principles as those who left in 1936: they were after not handouts or charity, but real jobs, because unemployment affects people as individuals; it affects families; and, if there is mass unemployment, as there is in the north and in Jarrow in particular, it affects the town. It is no wonder that there are social divisions throughout the country.
It has sometimes annoyed me over the past decade or so—I hope that Ministers will take this on board—that unemployment is spoken of in percentages, with this per cent. in Jarrow, that per cent. in Liverpool and so on. Percentages are no good, because an unemployed individual is 100 per cent. unemployed. It is important to remember that.
Old habits die hard: I was reading Ellen Wilkinson's book, "The Town That Was Murdered", and found some interesting parallels between the 1930s and the 1980s. For example, she said that in the mid-1930s unemployment in Jarrow was about 70 per cent., while in the neighbouring town of Hebburn it was lower, so the Government decided to merge the figures and came up with a figure of 35 per cent.: they cut unemployment overnight. There is an interesting parallel with the 30 changes in the way in which the figures have been calculated.
Ellen Wilkinson also provided some interesting parallels concerning youth unemployment, which was rife then as now in Jarrow, and about people being thrown on the scrap heap at 40 and left to go stale and vegetate at home, wasting all the skills and promise that they showed in early life.
As Member of Parliament for Jarrow, I want to press the claim for jobs, which I consider to be imperative. That is why I welcome the Government's jobs package to get 250,000 youngsters nationally from welfare into work and to give the long-term unemployed the chance to get back into work, financed by a windfall tax on the privatised utilities.
Of course, we would be kidding everybody if we said we could build utopia overnight, but we must remember that the Labour party's pledges are a commitment and an indication of our priorities. The unemployed are of central importance to our programme. We are making a start, and I am sure that we will do more over the coming Parliament.
It is not as though the people of Jarrow and the surrounding area were lying back through the 1980s. Both councils in my constituency, South Tyneside and Gateshead, have been working actively with the private sector to try to generate jobs in the area. In particular, South Tyneside, which covers most of my constituency, has drawn up many innovative schemes to try to rejuvenate the area, in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors through an organisation called STEP, the South Tyneside Enterprise Partnership. Schemes include extension of the metro, provision of a second Tyne tunnel through a private finance initiative project, and preparation of green-field sites for industry.
I make no bones about the fact that I will press the Government on jobs for my area. I hope that we will get positive, urgent decisions on matters such as the second Tyne tunnel and STEP's single regeneration budget bid, which covers Jarrow and Hebburn. We need early decisions because those matters are vital for the area. There is much hope in my constituency. I make no apology for pressing the case for jobs in Jarrow, as other hon. Members will for their constituencies. I will often repeat the same message. I hope that we will be able to deliver for the people of Jarrow.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons), for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), among others, on making their maiden speeches.
I am the first ever Labour Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. Against all the odds, we won the seat, but we also won the argument. It was Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, who fought the Conservatives. It will be like that for ever more. We shall continue to win because people will back new Labour as they need a good, hard-working constituency Member of Parliament and a good new Labour Government.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Derek Conway, who gave the constituency great public service for 14 years. I pay tribute also to his predecessor,

Sir John Langford-Holt, who was held in great affection and high regard for 38 years before Mr. Conway. As I am only the third Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham since the war, I trust that the precedent for such longevity of service will continue. I pledge that I will fight for the people of Shrewsbury and Atcham with great heart and vigour.
I thank the Palace of Westminster staff, who have been so kind and helpful not only to me but to other new Members. They have set a standard in friendliness and in always being able to help us out. I also thank the voters who voted for me and my campaign team, who worked so tirelessly. I must thank my wife, Shelly, and my son, Alexander, who sacrificed much family life so that I could be here. I ask the powers that be to spell my wife's name correctly. I do not want to incur her wrath; in a choice between her wrath and the wrath of the Whips, give me the Whips' wrath any time. To those who warn that I would not want to incur the wrath of the Whips, I say, "You don't know my wife."
Last week, I brought my son, who is only 18 months old, to the Commons. One problem was that I had to explain that the television sets around the House cannot yet be tuned to Postman Pat or the Teletubbies. However, I might push the Finance and Services Committee to consider the possibility. My other problem was that my son is so young that he did not know the ways of this great Palace. When he could not get his own way, he decided to lie prostrate in the corridors of power, kicking and screaming. I was a little embarrassed until I found that that was not too unusual in the Commons.
To echo other maiden speeches, I hope that the House will become more family-friendly. I know that great strides have already been made but, as a father, I shall support measures to make it more user-friendly to families.
It is a great honour to serve the people of Shrewsbury and Atcham. The constituency's history goes back thousands of years. The village of Wroxeter, which is near Shrewsbury, was a Roman city—in its heyday, the fourth largest in Britain. Acton Burnell, another small village near Shrewsbury, held the third Parliament of Edward I.
Some might disagree, but I truly believe that Shrewsbury is delightful—the finest town in England. It is dominated by its 15th-century black and white Tudor housing and narrow cobbled streets. It is the birthplace of Charles Darwin. The surrounding villages account for my constituency's name. Atcham represents the quarter of its voters who live in rural areas. It is some of the most beautiful countryside to be seen. Hon. Members may recall that we have an annual flower show. I do not want to cause a dispute with the Minister for sport, but it can hold its own with any in the country.
Shrewsbury does not rely only on the past. It has a great future. It has a thriving business community with great plans for expansion. I trust that I can play a part in bringing more investment to the town and surrounding areas. I hope that our Challenge 2000 bid to try to create a new business venture in the north of Shrewsbury, which will bring up to 2,500 much needed jobs to the town, will be successful. Youth unemployment is especially bad in some deprived areas of Shrewsbury. People may say, "What deprived areas in Shrewsbury?" However, there are such areas. Many towns and villages around Britain have, like some parts of Shrewsbury, suffered over the


past 18 years. I hope that our pledge to put 250,000 youngsters back to work or into training will help up to 200 young people in the Shrewsbury area. I shall work in partnership with councils, businesses, the voluntary sector or whoever else to help to bring more jobs to Shrewsbury.
I mentioned the Acton Burnell Parliament of 1283, the main purpose of which was to provide for the recovery of debts. I welcome the measure in the Gracious Speech that will ensure that, at long last, large companies pay their debts on time. Small businesses have suffered much: one has gone out of business every three minutes since 1992. We need to help them quickly. Those entrepreneurs will help us to forge ahead and create more jobs.
The new Labour Government have set a new direction and offer new politics for Britain. For business circles, one of the Government's main attributes will be the creation of private-public partnerships and agreements. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale. The public purse cannot fund everything in future. We must take the social conscience of the public sector and work with the dynamic, efficient private sector to come together as one to provide the services that the country needs.
On business, I look forward to the information technology opportunities that lie ahead, especially for rural areas. Many young people in rural areas in my constituency could work from home, the village hall or a communal area using information technology.
It was a great travesty to see Shrewsbury Town football club relegated last season. Of course, that occurred under my predecessor, so I look forward to the football club rightly being promoted in the coming seasons so that it can become a centre for the town.
Farming is of key importance in my constituency and farmers there have been devastated by BSE. The handling of the BSE crisis was terrible and I welcome the Foreign Secretary's pledge to work with Europe and to be at the centre of Europe in order to ensure the lifting of the beef ban as quickly as possible. I cannot stress enough how hard the crisis has hit some of those beef farmers, especially those on small farms. They have had to endure not just the financial hardship but the mental stress that has been inflicted on themselves and their families. I trust that things will improve quickly.
We need a reform of the common agricultural policy and it must be linked to enhancing the environment. We must ensure that in future we do not pay farmers to do nothing with set-aside. We should ask them and pay them to enhance the environment.
I should like to say a quick word about our terrific hospital, the Royal Shrewsbury. It has had to undergo incredible hardship and cuts over the past 18 years and I pay tribute to all the staff, the doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and consultants, who have worked so hard to provide such an excellent service in spite of financial difficulties.
I want to extend a warm invitation to any hon. Member to come to Shrewsbury to taste the delights of such a wonderful area and take in the beautiful countryside.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on his maiden speech and on being the first Labour Member for that constituency. I want to begin

with a denial—I am not 27. It came as a great shock to me to see in The Observer after my election that I was down as one of the new young intake. It has never been more true that one should not believe all one reads in the newspapers, even the quality ones.
It is a great privilege to be elected to represent the constituency of Bolton, South-East, which comprises parts of the old Bolton borough along with villages such as Little Lever and Kearsley and the former mining community of Farnworth. It is a mixed rural and urban community with a large Muslim population.
We made history on 1 May by returning for the first time three Labour Members representing the great town of Bolton. We have a Labour Member of the European Parliament and we have a substantial Labour council. Together, we shall put great pressure on the shakers and movers in this place to bring benefits to the people of my constituency and the rest of Bolton.
Burnden park, the former home of Bolton Wanderers football club, is in my constituency. I say "former" because that great football team is on the move—it is going up to the premier division following an extremely successful season and is moving to a new stadium at Horwich, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). Before that great football team leaves my constituency, I want to place on record my congratulations on its past success and my best wishes for its future success.
The former member for my constituency was David Young, a Scotsman born in Greenock. He became a teacher in the midlands before entering Parliament in 1974 as the Member for the Bolton, East constituency. I helped David fight that 1974 election, so I have known him for a long time, and I was his constituency chairman twice. From 1977 to 1979, David served as the parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State for Defence, Fred Mulley. As hon. Members will know, David had a keen interest in foreign affairs and was well travelled. He was an excellent constituency member and was in touch with all the electorate of Bolton, South-East, including the large Muslim community.
Bolton has suffered badly over the past two decades. Its textile and engineering industries have been decimated, with the loss of thousands of jobs. The miners have all lost their jobs and there is no longer a single pit left in the north-west following the recent closure of Parkside colliery. However, because of the robust nature of Boltonians and a keen interest by the local authority in creating new jobs, Bolton has picked itself up and adopted new skills.
I encourage anyone who has not visited this great town to do so. Outside Manchester it has one of the finest shopping centres in the north-west and our markets are a tourist attraction. It has a strong cultural tradition, with several fine museums, including the Hall-ith-Wood museum where Samuel Crompton invented the spinning mule. Arkwright also worked in the town. They were the pioneers of the industrial revolution. More recently, Sir Harry Kroto, educated at Bolton school, won the Nobel prize for chemistry. As a fellow chemist, I should like to add my congratulations to him. I should also mention Susan Isaacs, who was one of the pioneers of nursery education. I am pleased to learn that the Government have a keen interest in promoting such education. It has been revealed in the past few days in the


Bolton Evening News that even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a family tree that goes back to relatives in our town.
Two things propelled me to seek election to this place. First, as a chemist, about once a month for the past 29 years I have travelled Europe and visited nearly every university and polytechnic in the land presenting a show called "The Magic of Chemistry". It is an attempt to communicate science to the general public. One of my interests at Westminster will be to promote a public understanding of science. I am still a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and will remain so. I take a keen interest in the teaching of chemistry and in the chemical industry.
I have been a member of Bolton council for almost 20 years and served for 10 years as its chairman of housing. That is my greatest interest, and I shall be following up housing issues in the House. The housing committee in Bolton has been extremely innovative and there are some examples that we should promote for the rest of the country.
We began a dispute service between neighbours, called the Bolton neighbourhood dispute service. It is run by a superb organiser, Sue Parry, and employs 42 volunteers to mediate between neighbours who often have not spoken to each other for several years. I am pleased to say that the success rate for cases referred to it is over 80 per cent. We were the first local authority in the land to start such a mediation service and it is now being modelled by authorities throughout the north and, I hope, soon, throughout the country. I shall be promoting such services for other local authorities.
That service recently expanded into something else, which is extremely novel. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of the problem of bullying in schools. In Bolton, we are now training young people to mediate to solve the problem of bullying, and I commend such a service to other hon. Members for their areas.
When I was chairman of housing, I hit several problems, one of which was a rapidly escalating housing waiting list. It had been about 5,000, but suddenly it started to escalate and reached a peak at 8,000. I felt that I had to do something about it, so one day I walked into the office of the director of housing and said to Mr. George Caswell, "I want a partnership between this council, the Housing Corporation and some of the leading housing associations in the town." I have to pay tribute to Mr. Caswell, because within six months he had created an organisation called Bolton Community Homes Ltd., which has been one of the finest examples of partnership in housing across the land.
In approximately three years, we delivered 1,700 homes to cure the problem of the escalating waiting list. We did not build just ordinary homes for ordinary people. We built specialised homes for the disabled and other people with special problems. Indeed, the architects went to the very people who were to live in those homes—especially disabled people—and asked them what facilities they would like, and where they should be situated in the house. In other words, the people themselves helped the architects to design homes for them to live in. I recommend that approach to other people.
The old cotton towns of the north have a serious problem. They have row upon row of old, terraced houses well over 120 years old, the fabric of which is crumbling. That is the towns' biggest problem. I shall be pressing the Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who has responsibility for housing—very hard on the matter. We have 23,000 unfit homes in Bolton. The environmental health officers consider that about 5,000 to 6,000 of them are irredeemably unfit and should be knocked down—and this is 1997.
Since 1979, we have lost more than 70 per cent. of our housing funding and we have not been able to tackle the substantial problems as we wanted. The Conservative Government reduced the grant for private sector improvements from a high level of 95 per cent. in 1979 to a low level of 60 per cent., where it remains today. That means that local councils have to borrow 40 per cent. of the money needed to improve private sector homes, and that is while their total expenditure is capped. It has been absolutely impossible for any local authority in the country, especially Bolton, to tackle that serious problem.
The Conservative Government bragged about spending the same on housing as the Labour Government spent when they left office in 1979. That is true, but the difference is that in 1979, the Labour Government were spending most of their housing money on bricks and mortar, whereas the outgoing Conservative Government spent most of their money on housing benefit, in pursuance of a dogmatic belief in market rents. Incidentally, they were never able to define market rents.
It is a scandal that so much money is spent on housing benefit. We must direct housing money away from benefits and into renovation and new homes for the homeless across Britain. Under the Conservatives, the housing benefit bill rose from about £3 billion when the Labour Government left office in 1979 to a rapidly escalating £13 billion today. The new Labour Government face an enormous problem even in halting the growth in housing benefit, never mind reversing the trend.
It will be a privilege to represent my constituents in Bolton, South-East. In my election campaign, I promised that in the House of Commons I would do my best for them, and I will.

Ms Kali Mountford: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak this morning on my first occasion in the House, in what has been a veritable confetti of maiden speeches. I stand in the shadow of some great speeches. I first refer to my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, I am elevating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) far too soon. First, he is too young and now he has been here a long time. I was struck by the similarities between his constituency and mine as he talked about the weaving industry and his experience in housing.
Likewise, I am delighted to hear that the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) came to the House at the age of 18 months, beating my own record of early interest in politics. I became interested at 14. I hope that my hon. Friend's son follows in his great footsteps. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) made a


moving speech about his constituency, with its great and sound history. I know that his constituency will have a great fighter in him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) has now left the Chamber. Her name rang around the debating halls of this country long before she became a Member of Parliament. I know that her great voice, embodied in a small body, will add a great deal to the House. It will be difficult for me, standing in the shadow of those wonderful speeches, to deliver my own maiden speech.
It is normal in the House to follow certain traditions. Those traditions were taught to me at the age of 14 by my teachers of history, government and citizenship. They are two great sisters who, I am glad to say, wrote to me yesterday. I was touched to receive their letter. I have remembered them all these years as an inspiration and I am delighted that they have noticed that I have arrived here at last after 30 years. They would be embarrassed if I named them, but I have to say that good teachers who inspire a person and whose teaching takes people through life are worth more than gold. Those two teachers were worth more than gold to me.
What my teachers taught me about the traditions of this House was the importance of democracy. We had some talk of democracy earlier today and I was delighted that there were parties of schoolchildren in the Gallery at the time. I hope that although the House is fairly quiet this morning, they will have been inspired by this great place. Democracy is nothing if we do not take part in it.
The thing that I learned when I was taught government and citizenship by those two great teachers was that we as a people have to take part in our own state—the state of the nation and the state of our democracy. I hope that the new Secretary of State for Education and Employment will take that on board as we examine the standards of education for the future. It is all very well to have basic standards of education, but I have met people in my constituency who do not know the difference between local government and Parliament, and who do not know how or where to vote, and people who do not know that they can vote or how to put their name on the electoral register. It is a sad indictment of a democracy if its people are not actively involved in the process.
I shall return to the traditions of the House, because I do not want to let my teachers down. I want to talk about my constituency of Colne Valley. It is often confused with other constituencies because it is named after the River Colne. Make no mistake, there are two valleys in the constituency—the Colne valley and the Holme valley. It is in the Colne valley that one finds great traditional industrial heritage. It has those oft-sung-about satanic mills nestled in its great splendour and rugged hillsides.
To the south is the Holme valley, with its beautiful picture-postcard elegance—those green and pleasant pastures. The contrast of the two valleys has attracted the television and film industry to my constituency. I am pleased about that because the television and film industry has an income equal to that of the oil industry. It is an importer of great wealth into our country.
The three programmes that I want to talk about should be well known to hon. Members. The first is "Last of the Summer Wine", with Compo, Clegg and Foggy, those three great characters. The programme may mislead hon.

Members into thinking that the people of Colne Valley are quite elderly. In fact, they are younger than the national average for any constituency. So please do not be misled by that great programme.
Two new television programmes have appeared on our screens, "Where the Heart is"—my heart is certainly in the Colne valley—and "Wokenwell", which those of us who live nearby know is actually filmed at Marsden. "Where the Heart is" is filmed outside my house in Slaithwaite, so I am extremely proud.
I particularly want to talk about the film and television industry, because it embodies technical skills and the great talents of producers, film technicians and the actors we all know. That industry is dependent on high-quality products, high-quality skills and well-paid jobs. That is the foundation for a proper strong, key economic base, the sort of economic base that I support.
In his maiden speech, my predecessor, Graham Riddick, referred to "Last of the Summer Wine", and also eulogised about our beautiful constituency. I agree with him on both those counts. Alas, I do not agree with very much else that he said in that speech, nor with very much else that he said after that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree, however, that he was a man who argued valiantly for the things in which he believed, often in the face of great opposition—indeed, some hon. Members on his own Benches did not always agree with him. He always stood up for what he believed in and the people of Colne Valley recognised that.
In his maiden speech, my predecessor spoke up for the demolition of one of our local mills, which he described as an eyesore and which he said should be razed to the ground. I am pleased to inform the House that that mill has now been restored to its former magnificent splendour. Kirklees council, a good Labour council which I am happy to support, formed a joint venture company to achieve that transformation. That venture brought together the skills of the local construction industry, which was so short of jobs, and the need of the community for good housing. It has been a magnificent success. The former mill now provides 122 new homes for the people of Colne Valley. It also provided high-quality, good, well-paid jobs for architects, joiners, builders, plumbers and many, many more.
I approve of that type of marriage between industry, its needs and the needs of the community. I am delighted that the Labour manifesto, which has now been translated into a wonderful Gracious Speech, includes such partnerships.
If we were able to release the £30 million of housing capital receipts now held by Kirklees council, imagine how we could spend that money to invigorate our local economy. Despite the imagination of Kirklees council, which established the joint venture company to redevelop Crowther mill, there is still much to do.
Colne Valley does not suffer from the same type of housing shortage as elsewhere, but some of our housing stock is dilapidated, particularly that in the private rented sector. I am extremely worried about one family in my community whose house is so wet and damp that both their children suffer greatly from asthma. One child, born just in January this year, is already taking eight steroids a day. Her doctor has told her mother that that is because of the damp condition of her home. How wonderful it will be to renovate social housing and build it anew so that


such families have the opportunity of a decent home. That development will also benefit the construction industry, which we need in Colne Valley.
Let us also consider the implications of the windfall levy and our plans for how we might use it in Kirklees. We aim once again to bring together the skills of our community and the needs of the population. If we develop the construction industry, and we shall, it will provide a great opportunity to train more people to have the very skills that will be needed in that expanding industry. In my area we are already looking at ways in which we could use the windfall levy to create the opportunities to learn those new skills. That would also enable people to gain the new jobs that will be created as a result.
The former Labour Member for Colne Valley, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), will be pleased to discover that part of our plans for the windfall levy includes the introduction of a new environmental task force. We have a great need for that force in Colne Valley because of its canals, rivers and dry stone walls, which need to be renovated. Those environmental needs are also social needs when we consider the need for environmental improvements to homes on our estates. Again, overcoming those problems will involve a partnership between the needs of our community and the skills of our population.
When my right hon. Friend made his maiden speech, he made great reference to the environment. On a visit to Scapegoat Hill school in my constituency, I saw some trees that my right hon. Friend had planted 25 years ago. They are now growing vigorously despite harsh conditions, which may offer a parallel to the Labour party and its development in recent years.
I am sure that when my right hon. Friend referred to the importance of the environment, he envisaged that the environment of Colne Valley would be improved by measures such as those contained in the Gracious Speech, which we supported so strongly yesterday.
I am also pleased to recognise the contribution made to my constituency by Richard Wainwright, who was the Member until 1987. In his maiden speech, he referred to the traditional industrial heritage of Colne Valley and spoke about the local mills. We now need to diversify our economy, because too much dependence on the traditional industries of the mills will mean that our local economy will die on the vine. We cannot allow that to happen. The use of the windfall levy, capital receipts and the great progress made in welfare-to-work programmes will give us the opportunity to make our local economy as diverse as the many villages and people who reside in Colne Valley. That is the right way forward. We cannot once again depend on one industry, because that would lead to the death of our local economy. I want Colne Valley to have a strong and vigorous economic future.
It has also been a tradition for the Member for Colne Valley to talk about our great history, and I do not want to let my predecessors down on this occasion. Let me take the House back briefly to 1907, when the first socialist Labour Member was elected for Colne Valley—Victor Grayson, who subsequently mysteriously disappeared. I agree with my predecessor Graham Riddick that that is one tradition that I do not want to follow. Heaven knows

where he ended up, but I am glad to have ended up here. Other great names, such as Philip Snowden, were also referred to by my predecessors, and who can forget that Harold Wilson was born in my constituency.
What a great tradition for any new Member to follow, and I am glad to do so. In the shadow of the many speeches that I have heard this morning and of the great politicians who came before me, as the first woman Member for Colne Valley, I hope to achieve at least half of what they achieved.

Mr. John Cryer: I am grateful to be called just before the Leader of the House. I pay tribute to those colleagues who have made their maiden speeches today, which have all been excellent, particularly those from the new Members for Colne Valley (Ms Mountford), for Bolton, South-East, (Dr. Iddon), for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons).
The issue that I should like to raise this morning is the future of Oldchurch hospital at Romford in east London. That hospital was on the previous Government's hit list of those under threat of closure in Greater London. A huge campaign to keep that hospital open has been run for about six years. If Oldchurch was closed in the long term—I know that the new Government have announced a moratorium on hospital closures, which I welcome—that would have an enormous impact on east London.
My hon. Friends the new Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), who has long been involved in the campaign, for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and I have fought to keep the hospital open. I also know that my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham (Ms Church) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have long been involved in that campaign. The closure of that hospital would have an enormous impact not only on Havering, the borough which I represent in Hornchurch, but on Newham, West Ham and many other London boroughs where the provision of health care is already a great problem.
The plan is to replace Oldchurch hospital with an accident and emergency department at Harold Wood hospital, which is far less accessible, particularly for people in the south of the constituency. Reaching Harold Wood hospital's A and E department would be difficult. It would involve a two to three-hour trip on public transport. It would be particularly difficult for older people, who might not have their own cars, and young mothers—there are many single mothers in my constituency.
The decision to close Oldchurch hospital was wrong in the first place, was mistaken and can be reversed. The new A and E department at Harold Wood will be built under the private finance initiative, which I regard as mistaken, but the PFI contracts have not been signed, so the plan can be reversed without any spending commitments having been given. We can reverse the closure of Oldchurch hospital, keep it open and continue to maintain a service to people in Hornchurch, Romford, Upminster and many other constituencies in east London.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): This has been a somewhat unusual debate, not only because of the empty


Conservative Benches, but because of the many maiden speeches that have been made. I do not think that this three-hour Adjournment debate has ever been used for that purpose. It has been extremely useful and the time been well used by a wide range of Members, who have learnt quickly what opportunities can be provided in the House to those who want to raise issues affecting their constituents.
In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friends who had to start the debate, going in at the deep end without any experienced Members opening the way. I recall the relief of getting my maiden speech out of the way. Members who have spoken should be feeling not just relief, but much collective pride at the quality of their contributions. They have clearly shown the quality of debate that we can expect from new Members who entered at the last election.
May I say a few words about each of the issues that have been raised? I hope to be able to have time to deal with all of them today. The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), who said that he wanted some change and reform in the House. Needless to say, I welcome that comment. We will be looking for some good ideas from new Members, who may not yet be bogged down in our old ways and therefore may not be as resistant to change as some of us who have been here for longer—although I am quite an enthusiast for change. I hope that we can have some support from new Members, and from old and new Members working together.
My hon. Friend showed that his work as a recorder is valuable experience, which he now brings to the House. I am sure that his background will be extremely helpful. He highlighted in particular drug and alcohol-related crime, and I am sure that what he has seen in practice will allow him to contribute to debates on those issues. I hope that we can use his expertise there.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a confident maiden speech and was very amusing on occasions. He gave some history of his constituency. It was the first that I had ever heard of railway signals being used to prevent people from voting, but we all learn, which is partly what these debates are about. With his background in the medical world, he was able to give us his informed concern; again, we will appreciate and listen to that in future. Giving us a full list of Oxford colleges was brave and I hope for his sake only that it was a complete list; otherwise, we will have to hear from him very quickly to repair any omissions.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), whom I have known for some time. He mentioned his father, who was known to all of us in the House, but he failed to mention his and his father's connection with Bolton Wanderers. However, as that was put right by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I can forgive him that on this occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley showed that he knew his constituency very well, having been born and brought up there and having worked there. He clearly knows the problems it faces and intends to be a strong voice on its behalf. He talked about the many difficulties that it has faced in recent years, not least because of the previous Government's inability to get the best out of the

European Union. I am sure that he will be lobbying new Ministers hard, and he proved today that he is prepared and able to do that.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is not a new Member, but one of those Conservative Members who has changed constituencies. He is not in his place at the moment, but he dropped me a note to say that he had to go to a constituency engagement. I was going to say to him that I welcomed his comments on party funding. I hope that they will be consistent. The fact that he has raised the issue today shows, I hope, that he will support our desire to have a Nolan or a Nolan-type inquiry into party funding, and to change the rules in the not too distant future.
The hon. Member for Southend, West raised some specific points about the cockle industry in Leigh-on-Sea. I have an admission to make: I am not an expert on that industry, so I intend to ask the relevant Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write to him about those concerns.
I do know something about the situation in care homes and in the national health service. The comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West about blocked beds and the need for change were somewhat rich. He was pretending that a problem that has been there for many years had suddenly arisen in the past 18 days of the Labour Government and had never materialised in the 18 years of the Conservative Government. Again, I will pass his comments on to the Department, but he should have acknowledged that his own Government bore some responsibility for the problems about which he was complaining.
In her maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke about her constituents' concern—particularly, that they have lost out because of the previous Government's negative approach to Europe. She also used her own experience as a teacher to make some pertinent remarks about education, the need for consultation and the need for people in education to work in partnership. I welcomed her contribution on that. It is important that the House consists of Members with a wide range of experience. I am sure that she will have much to contribute in education debates. She said that, if her constituents were to prosper as individuals as well as a society, education had to be a priority. That is clearly a Government concern.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) talked not only about the local problems of his constituency, but about the practical problems that some new Members face and that his party faces, having almost doubled in size in a short time. He said that he had a desk, an office and a telephone, although the telephone was not yet working. I have to issue a disclaimer to start with because those items are not a matter for the Leader of the House, but he is extremely fortunate. When most of us arrived as new Members, we were told not only that we should not expect an office too quickly, but that we should not even perch in the wrong places to use telephones. I was glad that one of my hon. Friends acknowledged the fact that the arrangements made by the House authorities this time have been far better and more helpful to new Members than ever before. The fact that we now have rooms with banks of telephones and information points is a remarkable breakthrough.
The hon. Gentleman might be concerned about the difficulties, but I ask him to sympathise with those of us who experienced far greater difficulties. That does not mean, however, that things could not be improved. The scale of the changeover is so great that it has taken everyone by surprise. If the hon. Gentleman accurately predicted the result of the election, I wish that he had told the rest of us, because we might all have been better prepared.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) talked about class sizes and the standard spending assessment for education, but also returned to an issue that he has mentioned many times—the need to improve electoral registration. It is something that he has brought to our attention many times by being a persistent Back Bencher and not letting the issue go.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is here. I do not expect that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire will let Home Office Ministers off the hook, but I am sure that they will try to responsive. Ministers might not take the precise path that my hon. Friend wishes, but I am sure that they will consider the problem and try to make improvements. All of us believe that improvements can be made.
While my hon. Friend the Minister is here, I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire also mentioned the need to revise the design of the ballot paper. As that is an issue of great concern to me following my experience of elections, I hope that I can lobby as well as Back Benchers. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire in highlighting the need for disabled people to have full and proper access to polling stations. It was partly due to the lead he gave before the last election that many of us were able to explore the problem in our own localities, and I hope and believe that some changes were made as a result.
We then heard a speech from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is a Liberal Democrat. He made a very confident contribution, and I am sure that we shall hear much more from him. He challenged us to be a reforming Government; I hope that we do not disappoint him. I am sure that he will continue to make valuable contributions to debates on education, the police and the environment, which he highlighted today, and that his constituents will be pleased that he has spoken so forcefully on their behalf. In passing, he sympathised with his predecessor for having three recounts. As someone who has a four-figure majority for the first time in five Parliaments, I sympathise with anyone who has to go through so many recounts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) did not have as narrow as a majority as I had when I started. She showed that she not only knows but understands her constituency but said one thing that I found very hard to accept. She said that she was a secret horn player. I am not sure that there can be such a thing as a secret horn player; perhaps she will tell us about that some other time. She proved that she is well qualified to follow what she described as the trend to have quirky

characters represent Rochdale. She is extremely competent, and I am sure that her bouncy contributions will be welcome in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) also made his maiden speech. He began by saying that he wanted changes to the voting system in the House, and we can all sympathise with the delays involved. He went on to say what a good friend he was of his predecessor, Don Dixon. To those of us who have been promoting change in the House, there is a certain contradiction in my hon. Friend's two statements. I just hope that the friendship is not spoiled by my hon. Friend's contribution. However, I am sure that his sentiments about the need to campaign for jobs in Jarrow will be shared by his predecessor and appreciated by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) pointed out that he was only the third Member to hold his seat since the war. That is quite-a record these days. I hope that he will be here for a very long time. He mentioned the House's lack of family-friendliness. I have been here for many years and have often been asked what impact having a lot of new women here will make, so I was glad that a man showed that it is not simply a female issue, but that we should all attempt to ensure that the House of Commons responds to everyone's needs, including all those with family responsibilities. I hope that we can take such issues on board when it comes to modernising the House.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will appreciate the concerns that he expressed about bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the need to reform the common agricultural policy. The Government are of course committed to that.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East for more than 20 years. He might have mentioned Bolton Wanderers because he knew that it would elicit favourable comments from me. However, on this occasion he was not asking for anything, so perhaps he was right to save his comments for another occasion. He has been renowned for his knowledge of chemistry for many years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I both have sons who have seen my hon. Friend's "The Magic of Chemistry" show. I hope that the House will find ways to use his expertise. He also demonstrated expertise in housing, and those of us who have known him for many years know that to be a genuine concern of his.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Ms Mountford) also made a maiden speech—one old friend of mine following another. She is also a near neighbour of mine in constituency terms. She made an excellent contribution, which I am sure her constituents will appreciate. I share her concern to ensure that young people get involved in the democratic process and understand how government and Parliament work. I also share her desire to see some movement on the issue of capital receipts, because we are all aware of the housing problems that many local authorities are facing and have faced for many years. I look forward to examining various issues with her in the House and in our constituencies for many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) had already made his maiden speech, so he used this occasion to raise an important constituency issue, which is a traditional use of such debates.


He showed his strong local knowledge. I understand why he is concerned about Oldchurch hospital. He also said that other colleagues shared his concern. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the problem. Although I do not share his views on the private finance initiative and its possibilities, I will ensure that the Minister replies to the details of the issues that he raised.
The purpose of debates on matters to be considered before an Adjournment is always to allow hon. Members to raise a wide range of issues, and that is what has happened in this debate. Several hon. Members have mentioned some common concerns, such as education, youth unemployment and crime. The fact that such common concerns have been expressed shows that the Government were on the right track when we determined our priorities for inclusion in the Labour manifesto and for action.
Today, in excellent speeches, new Members have expressed their concerns, and it augurs well for the House's future, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, that hon. Members are willing to debate. I congratulate all the new Members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate.

Electoral Fraud

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Chair. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Treasury Bench. I am sure that he will illuminate our debates with distinction.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the issue of the conduct of elections, because, unhappily, electoral fraud and deceit are increasing. One form of fraud consists of candidates deliberately confusing the electorate by assigning titles to themselves on the ballot paper that are calculated to deceive voters.
In my own constituency, a man called Terry Betts referred to himself at the general election as the "New Labour" candidate. He was listed first on the ballot paper, whereas I—the official Labour candidate—was listed ninth. On election night, Betts apologised to me for—as he put it—"what happened today". I did not accept his apology, because I had not been the victim. The victims were the 2,000 electors who, because of the deliberate confusion caused by Betts, were denied the democratic right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Betts described himself on the ballot paper as New Labour, so that voters would believe that he was the official Labour candidate and was supported by Tony Blair. The truth is that Betts was not a member of the Labour party and that he has never been a member of the Labour party. He was not supported by Tony Blair, and Tony Blair has never heard of Terry Betts.
On polling day, Mr. Betts was supported by Councillor Isaac Leibowitz—a man known to the Home Office—who drove around in a car with an audio system, shouting, "Vote Labour. Vote Betts." Last year, Councillor Leibowitz was expelled from the Labour party by Tony Blair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. When the hon. Gentleman mentions another hon. Member, he should refer to him as "the Prime Minister", for example, or as the hon. Member for a specific constituency.

Mr. Sedgemore: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the problem is that I am explaining events that occurred during the general election, when the Prime Minister was neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Prime Minister-he was Mr. Tony Blair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: He is now, however, the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience in the House to know exactly how to deal with such matters.

Mr. Sedgemore: I will attempt to apply my brain to meeting your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Electoral fraud comes easily to Isaac Leibowitz. He is, indeed, a persistent electoral fraudster. Neither Hackney council nor its chief executive, however, has ever even admonished him for bringing the council into disrepute, contrary to the national code of conduct for local government councillors.
In 1994, in a local government election in the Northfields ward, Leibowitz engaged in a proxy voting scam. Although he was a Labour councillor, the scam was


designed to help in the election of three Tory councillors and to prevent the election of a Labour Jewish woman named Denise Robson. There is incontrovertible evidence that, in that election, some people who voted were under age, that others voted twice and from different addresses, and that foreigners who were not entitled to vote did vote.
In 1996, in a by-election in South Defoe, Leibowitz set up a new political party, which, to deceive the electorate, he called the "Labor party". He fraudulently persuaded electors to sign his candidate's nomination papers, because electors believed that his candidate was the official Labour party candidate. Leibowitz then went "granny farming" for votes, by obtaining proxy votes from very elderly, housebound people who had lost their critical faculties and were incapable of exercising a choice. Only three weeks ago, he participated in the general election, in which he exercised his corrupt talents. In a press release, the so-called New Labour candidate said that he had the support of a group of local councillors, who masquerade under the title of Hackney New Labour. Last year, each and every one of those councillors was expelled from the Labour party by the Prime Minister. They have nothing to do with new Labour.
Hackney New Labour is led by an embittered, shambolic 76-year-old man named Gerry Ross. That so-called New Labour man is a former communist who supported Joe Stalin. From the beginning of his subsequent membership of the Labour party until his expulsion from it, he consistently proved to be a wrecker. In 1977, he was expelled from Hackney council's Labour group. Two years ago, he was forced out of the chairmanship of a Londonwide body, the London Committee for Accessible Transport, because no one could tolerate his behaviour. Last year, he was expelled from the Labour party by the Prime Minister. He now leads a group of political and electoral cheats, who are attempting to corrupt the democratic process in Hackney.
I am sure that the Minister anticipates one of the points that is worrying me—my fear that, in 1998, that bogus organisation, Hackney New Labour, will attempt to corrupt and pervert local elections in London and Hackney. I believe that action must be taken to stop that happening.
After the general election, I received reports of people suffering distress at every polling station because of confusion over who was the official Labour candidate—it was me. At one polling situation, an old lady burst into tears and had to be consoled by my ex-wife after she realised her mistake. That old lady gets a vote only once every five years, and her day had been ruined. A man at another polling station, after realising his mistake, rushed back into the polling booth and called out: "Stop voting, everyone. You are voting for the wrong person." At that, three voters left the polling station, with their ballot papers, to ask people outside who was the official Labour candidate—all of which, obviously, was unlawful.
An old lady at yet another polling station, who realised that she had mistakenly put her cross against Betts's name, ate her ballot paper rather than placing it into the ballot box. In a long political career, people have done many things to come to my defence, but none of them had been so heroic as to eat their ballot paper.
After the general election, we have received hundreds of telephone calls from voters who felt that they had been deceived. Many people have asked me why the chief executive—Tony Elliston, who was the returning officer in charge—did not take action. That is a good question, because, on 17 April 1997—during the general election campaign—the Labour party's lawyers faxed Elliston a copy of a judgment in a similar case, in which a candidate who called himself a New Labour candidate was not the official Labour candidate. In that case, the judge ruled that what had occurred was
a fraudulent device or contrivance which was intended to impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of electors within section 115(2)(b)".
Some senior and respected councillors have told me that they fear that the chief executive's indifference to electoral fraud may arise from questionably close relationships with the bogus members of Hackney New Labour. I will not comment on that, but it is something that Ministers may like to mull over.
What I can say with certainty—for a moment, I thought that I was on the wrong side of the Chamber—is that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) complained to the chief executive about the appalling delay in sending out poll cards, he responded superciliously, saying: "We don't want to get them out too early, do we?" That was not the view of the electorate, thousands of whom did not receive their poll cards until the day before the election.
Whatever the truth about the bogus "New Labour" candidate Betts, Councillor Leibowitz, the chief executive and Hackney New Labour, the Minister will agree, I am sure, that working men and women fought long and hard to obtain the vote. Politicians and administrators should respect their right to vote for the candidate of their choice—indeed, they have a duty to do so. I fear that things will not be sorted out without the intervention of Home Office Ministers, and I look forward to a sympathetic reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on filling that Chair. I know from experience that it is a job that you will do admirably and to the benefit of the whole House.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate on a number of aspects of the conduct of parliamentary elections. I am especially grateful that he has raised the matter so soon after the general election. My hon. Friend has raised a number of points, the first of which is the cynical and misleading descriptions of some candidates on nomination papers and ballot papers, and the consequences that that has had in his constituency and elsewhere. The second point is the possibility of abuse of the absent voter arrangements.
Those are both important issues. Whatever other expertise we may have, the conduct of elections is dear to the hearts of all hon. Members. As the general election is so recent, it is even dearer than usual.
Both issues are important. I recognise that my hon. Friend has eloquently and wittily explained the problems that arise because candidates misdescribe themselves,


using party titles to which they have no right. That is indeed important. I am also pleased that the debate provides an opportunity to discuss spoiling tactics, which were not successful in my hon. Friend's constituency. In Knowsley, we have had long experience of candidates describing themselves as Labour candidates when they were not entitled to do so. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is far easier to cause confusion with such titles in local elections than it is in general elections.
I turn now to misleading descriptions on ballot papers. The provision that allows every candidate to include a description on his or her nomination paper is set out in the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. No candidate is required to provide a description on the nomination paper, but, where he or she does so, the description as set out on the nomination paper is automatically transferred to the ballot paper.
The rules provide only that the description must not exceed six words and must be sufficient, with the candidate's other particulars, to identify him or her. Rightly, the description may not contravene the ordinary law of the land. It must not, for example, be obscene or racist, or act as an incitement to crime.
My hon. Friend has rightly said that responsibility for these matters rests with the returning officer. The 1983 Act places responsibility for the conduct of parliamentary elections on acting returning officers in each constituency. Acting returning officers, however, do not have the power to amend a candidate's nomination paper, and may reject a nomination only in two very particular circumstances. Those are that the candidate is disqualified because he or she is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, or that the nomination paper is not as required by law and is not subscribed in due form.
The effect of the second part of the rules is that the acting returning officer can rule only on the validity of the nomination paper, and not on the validity of the person's nomination. It is here that the problem arises. The reason for limiting the acting returning officer's authority in this way is clear. Successive Governments have taken it as a first priority that acting returning officers should not be drawn into making decisions that might be considered political or party political. Every hon. Member will see the common sense in that.
I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that the use of misleading party names is a problem. The returns from the general election have still to be brought together, but I accept that the use of potentially misleading party names on ballot papers is likely to have increased from 1992. I am certain that, when we have a chance to analyse those returns, we shall see that that is the case.
Fortunately for the House and for my hon. Friend, the spoiling tactics used in his constituency did not have the desired outcome. Indeed, my hon. Friend is here today to tell us the story. As far as we know, the problem of misleading descriptions has not affected the outcome in any constituency in the general election. I know, however, that there is a strong argument that, in the 1994 European elections, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was affected. On a subsequent occasion, the hon. Member may raise that issue. In that election, the title "Literal Democrat" was used.

Mr. Mike Hancock: indicated assent.

Mr. Howarth: I say to the hon. Member for Torbay—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."]

Mr. Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is not here; I hope that the Minister is not under a misapprehension. He is right in asserting that there was a serious problem in the European election. The issue went to court, but was not resolved in the way that we would have hoped.

Mr. Howarth: I made a mistake. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was nodding so vigorously that I assumed that he was the hon. Member for Torbay. Obviously, he has been seduced by the power of my oratory, which was the cause of the problem. Clearly, a problem arose in the European election, and it is a matter that must be looked at in future.
Hon. Members will recognise that the problem of the attempted misdirection of the electorate has been with us for a long time. Descriptions were introduced specifically to address that problem. Many hon. Members will recall the days when there was no description on the ballot paper; I remember that being the case within my political lifetime. Descriptions were introduced to try to address the problem, but they clearly have not been as effective as we would have wished.
There are a number of options that do not require party registration, an issue to which I shall turn in a moment, and which have been looked at by Home Office officials. The various options include the use of party logos on ballot papers, the strengthening of the 1983 Act to provide a specific offence of using a description intended to mislead, and the introduction of a challenge process to be heard before a High Court judge. I know that the Liberal Democrats, in various submissions, have supported that.
There are difficulties with all three proposals, which need to be scrutinised in much greater detail. At this stage, I would not like to make a commitment to any of them. However, now that the election is over, discussion of the issues between the political parties will go ahead. I hope that we can examine them again to see whether there is any prospect of moving ahead, although I must add the qualification that there are problems with all three proposals that I have mentioned.
I should like to say a few words on political party registration, which offers us better prospects for dealing with the problems. The principal problem with the use of party names as candidate descriptions is that political parties are not recognised in electoral law. The lack of any means by which a political party can register its name for electoral purposes is the starting point for the difficulties that my hon. Friend has described.
From that stems the problem of a candidate being able to describe himself as new Labour when he has nothing to do with the Labour party or as a Literal Democrat when he has nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats, or, as has happened in my constituency, simply to use the confusing title "Labour", spelled properly. We have never been able to challenge that.
If she were free to do so, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) could wax lyrical for at least 15 minutes on the confusion that often


exists at elections in Liverpool, where various candidates use all kinds of different descriptions, trying to pretend that they are Labour party candidates when they are not.
We have to make progress on this. The lack of statutory registration of political parties has consequences for party funding. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned our commitment to look into that. The registration of political parties would have to be part of any mechanism for bringing party funding under control. If we have any kind of proportional system—an issue that will be considered, and should be the subject of a referendum, during this Parliament—we shall have to consider party registration.
My hon. Friend is aware of our manifesto commitment to examine ways of regulating and reforming the funding of political parties—a commitment that we take seriously. We also have a clear manifesto commitment to put to the Scottish and Welsh people proposals for the devolution of powers to representative bodies elected by proportional representation.
The Government are considering how best to take forward those commitments. The answer will, without doubt, involve a measure for the registration of political parties, although it is too early to be able to say yet what that may involve. Any measures to register political parties would provide an opportunity for action on the statutory recognition of political party names. We shall certainly have to examine that issue.
My hon. Friend also talked about granny farming—the first time that I have come across the term. That is not a bizarre agricultural practice, as it might sound, but a specific problem to do with proxy votes. The Government take seriously any allegations of widespread and systematic abuse of the procedure for absent voting. If it becomes necessary, we are prepared to legislate.
There is no recent evidence that the abuse of proxy voting is systematic or widespread. Application forms for absent votes were amended in 1994, after well-publicised examples of elderly people being deliberately misled into believing that they were applying for a postal ballot paper, which would have allowed them to cast their own vote, rather than a proxy to vote on their behalf. Electors now have to indicate clearly whether they are applying to vote by post or by proxy. All appointments of a proxy must be signed by the elector or by the proxy.
Under the Representation of the People Act 1985, an elector who is unable to vote in person at the polling station may apply to vote by post or by proxy. Those wishing to vote by proxy are required to give the name and address of the person appointed as proxy, and must sign the proxy appointment or arrange for it to be signed by the proxy.
The review of electoral law and practice set up after the 1992 general election considered whether changes should be made to the absent voting system and to the application forms, to reduce the opportunity for abuse of the system and to make it more accessible to voters. Various suggestions were considered, including the redesign of the form, the need for the elector to sign in person, the wording on the ballot papers and the inclusion of the level of fines. The application forms were amended in 1994.
In the past five years, there have been allegations of absent voting irregularities in St. Ives in 1992, in Brighton in 1993, in Burnley in 1994 and in Cynon Valley in 1995. Various actions resulted from those allegations, some of which were upheld. The offences in Cynon Valley led to a member of Plaid Cymru being tried in Cardiff Crown court and sentenced to two months in prison.
There have been no reports, either officially from an acting returning officer or from newspapers, of abuses in connection with absent vote applications at the 1997 election, although I am sure that my hon. Friend's speech will remedy that defect. Any allegations of malpractice regarding the absent voting system should be reported to the police, whose job it is to investigate.
A person who votes as some other person—in person or by means of a postal or proxy vote—commits an offence of personation, which is a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Acts. A person is also guilty of a corrupt practice if
by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance he impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise of an elector.
I am not sure how that applies to swallowing a ballot paper, but we should investigate that.
A person who makes a false statement in an application for an absent vote, or who attests an application that he knows to contain a false statement, also commits an offence, as does anybody attesting an application when not qualified to do so. Electoral abuse is a serious matter. There are strict penalties for those found guilty, with a maximum fine of £5,000.
My hon. Friend has raised some important issues, and I congratulate him. It is right that such issues should be aired as early as possible in the electoral cycle, so that we have time to review and consider them and take any necessary action. If I have missed any points from my hon. Friend's speech, I shall pick them up and communicate with him.
Part of the task that the Government have set themselves is to clean up politics in this country. The issues raised today fall within the scope of that aim. Subject to proper consultation, we shall act to clean up politics and to make the electoral system as free of defects as possible.

Gangmasters (South Lincolnshire)

Sir Richard Body: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your election. I shall try not to trespass on your patience too often. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his appointment to a Department with which I have had a love-hate relationship for many years. I hope that he will enjoy his time there and play an active part in reforming the common agricultural policy.
A large proportion of our vegetables is produced in south Lincolnshire. As it is a seasonal industry, there is an obvious need for casual labour on a considerable scale. Many thousands of men and women are engaged in harvesting the vegetables and, increasingly, in processing them in factories. To give the Minister an idea of the scale, one factory requires more than 2,000 men and women to work on a casual basis most days of the year.
Obviously it is necessary to organise many thousands of people into the various farms and factories where they are required. That is the role of the gangmaster, who enters into an agreement with the farmer or factory manager to organise a certain number of people for a certain number of days. The gangmaster receives a lump sum and it is up to him or her to pay the gangers what he or she thinks fit.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the system. It worked very well for a long time, until unemployment took off and more than 1 million people in south Lincolnshire became available for casual work. They come from as far afield as Sheffield, Doncaster, Grimsby, Mansfield and even Birmingham. The people who recruit them are different from those who previously undertook such work. According to the Department for Education and Employment, there are now about 800 gangmasters, who fall into two categories. The first comprises those whose names, addresses and telephone numbers can be found in the Yellow Pages or the telephone directory. They can be easily identified by Government Departments and, generally speaking, they engage local people. They often employ their friends, relations and neighbours. They depend on having a good reputation, and over the years they have tried to do an honest job. If they were not honest to their friends and neighbours, they would not have gangs. However, their position has become almost untenable because of the other category of gangmasters who are in the vast majority—there are only about 50 or 60 in the Yellow Pages—many of whom have criminal records and continue to commit acts of dishonesty and violence.
There is such fear among the gangers that it is impossible for me to recount the experience of any ganger. One honest gangmaster who provided me with information was warned not to speak to me again. He was told that, if he did, he would be punished. He ignored that threat and gave me more evidence about the criminal activities of the other gangmasters. Having done that, he was punished. The other gangmasters took a puppy that he had recently acquired for his family and cut off its paws. Needless to say, he has given me no more information. Indeed, none of the honest gangmasters is willing to be forthcoming about the activities of the others.
We are dealing with people who have a disdain for the law of our country and do not hesitate to use some pretty bad methods of recruiting gangers and to treat them badly. I shall not go into detail about what goes on in the fields and the factories, but there are many cruel and obscene practices that cannot be justified.
This state of affairs has continued since unemployment rose, making it possible for disreputable gangmasters to recruit men and women who have been on social security and are willing to come to Lincolnshire, often making a long journey in transport provided by the gangmasters. Many of them get up at 4 o'clock in the morning to earn a miserable rate of pay.
The result is unfair competition. Wages are almost the only variable cost in producing and processing vegetables. Farms and factories that can reduce their wage costs can hold down their prices. As the Minister knows only too well, about five major supermarket chains are competing with each other and trying to keep down prices, with the result that at the end of the chain gangers are working at a derisory rate of pay.
The position has become worse in the past 12 months. Not only are gangmasters recruiting people who are on social security, but they have agents in eastern Europe—in Poland, the Ukraine and even Russia—who are bringing illegal immigrants to Britain. I cannot say how many there are, but it is certainly an appreciable number. Those people are told that, if they come to England, they can earn as much in one day as they get in one week in their own country, and that is true.
A number of evils are being committed. Apart from illegal immigration, there is massive social security fraud. One cannot quantify the millions of pounds that have been lost, but one sub-postmaster in my constituency has calculated that, even in his area, it must cost the system about £500,000 a year. Fraud is being perpetrated on the Inland Revenue and on Customs and Excise, but, above all, there has been a great depressing effect on wage rates in my constituency. It means that men and women in my constituency are better off on social security than doing a reasonable job. Only their self-respect enables people to continue working in appalling conditions as gangers on the farms and in the factories.
I feel sure that the Minister will be persuaded that action must be taken. The previous Government took a number of steps, none of which has succeeded. In the past, gangmasters were licensed, but licensing came to an end when there was full employment. There was no need for any control over gangmasters as, on the whole, the system worked successfully. However, the position has now completely changed and I can think of no solution other than a return to licensing.
The Minister may know that I introduced a Bill for the licensing of gangmasters. Up to now, I have not revealed that it was drafted for me by an official of the Transport and General Workers Union; I therefore hope that the Bill will be treated more sympathetically if I reintroduce it. If the Government cannot support such a measure, I urge them to think of taking some steps to overcome the evil to which I have referred. The previous Government tried; they took a number of steps, but they all failed. I urge the Minister to reconsider licensing.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I should first associate myself with the comments of my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and other hon. Members in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment as the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. Having served under you in Committee, I know that you will serve the House in your onerous task with distinction. We understand the great sacrifice that you, as a Member of Parliament, have made in order to fill the post that must be filled. We are therefore doubly grateful to you and your colleagues in the Chair for taking on such an awesome responsibility.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) on taking this early opportunity to raise an issue that over the years I have been an hon. Member—not as many years as him—he has raised many times. I have occasionally been present when he has raised the issue during Question Time as well as in a ten-minute Bill. Since I knew that he had obtained this debate, I took the opportunity over the past 24 hours to check in Hansard the written questions that he has tabled on the matter. He comes to the issue with a long and dedicated experience of concern for his constituents.
I hope that the issue is not partisan in any way. It is one of fairness and of justice for our citizens who work in the agricultural and farming industry. I share the concerns expressed. If unscrupulous people are at work—the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness painted a very sorry tale of the production of food in Britain—they must be rooted out, and rooted out vigorously.
As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly said, agriculture and horticulture depend on a large number of casual or seasonal workers. Many years ago—longer than I care to remember—I did a couple of weeks of fruit picking up in Scotland. I understand the concerns and why the job is highly seasonal. I understand that, during some weeks, up to 14,000 people a day are employed on a casual basis to pick food. The task obviously needs to be done that way.
As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness also rightly said, it is astonishing to learn—I have seen some of the newspaper advertisements—that, due to high levels of mass unemployment, especially in urban areas, which has gone on for a decade or more, people have been bussed into the Lincolnshire fields from as far afield as my own city of Birmingham. I shall return to that matter.
The organisation of employees by gangmasters is not, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said, inherently bad. Gangmasters must—we will ensure that they do—operate within the law. The law must be enforced without exception. There is therefore a need to look at the legal framework. I shall spend a few minutes detailing some aspects of it, before I turn to more positive remarks.
A range of legislation regulates the employment of workers by gangmasters. All agricultural workers must be paid the appropriate minimum wage. Agricultural work is the only area in which there is a statutory minimum wage for each hour of work.

Ms Gillian Merron: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the problems associated with pay, to which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) referred, would be alleviated by the introduction of a national minimum wage, especially since in my constituency and throughout Lincolnshire workers earn on average £40 a week less than is earned by the average British worker?

Mr. Rooker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election to the House. I campaigned for a national minimum wage when we last had a Labour Government, so I understand the difficulties and the need for it. Agriculture and horticulture is the one area with a statutory national minimum wage regulated by law and approved by the House, yet the law can be flouted in the extreme, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness have highlighted.
The national minimum wage in agriculture applies regardless of whether people are employed directly by a farmer, a gangmaster or a contractor. It applies to everyone who works on the farm, including those undertaking packhouse activities for crops grown on that farm. Provisions for people working away from the farm are slightly different. People on piece-work are sometimes told by gangmasters that the minimum wage does not apply to them. They are lying; the minimum wage does apply to such workers and they must not be paid less than the overall minimum required for the hours that they work.
Enforcement of minimum wage legislation is, of course, conducted through the criminal courts. One of the snags, however, is that we as enforcers have only six months after the event to take effective action in court. That presents a serious practical problem. I shall highlight one example of that.
As Channel 4's recent programme "A Bitter Harvest" highlighted—I have not seen the programme, but I have read the transcript and reports—someone may spend months researching a matter. Months therefore elapse before all the activities are recorded, produced and shown on television. That can cause problems for the regulators in rooting out perpetrators of events shown on our television screens. My officials are considering all aspects of that programme and enforcers across the Departments are considering whether any action can be taken as a result of the events highlighted in the film. We may be caught by the fact that the events took place more than six months ago. I do not deny that difficulty.
Other problems in enforcement relate to lack of records of hours worked or payment received. Workers are sometimes unwilling to be witnesses. Given that good gangmasters cease to be witnesses due to threats of intimidation from thugs and spivs, we should consider how workers feel when they want to complain. It is absolutely impossible for them to do so for fear of intimidation.
Gangmasters are subject to other legal provisions. Gangmasters supplying workers to work under the direction of farmers are subject to the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and the penalties for infringement are


harsh. The Department of Trade and Industry must follow up complaints. In the worst cases, offenders may have to cease operations as an employment agency or business for up to 10 years.
Gangmasters are also expected to comply with relevant tax and national insurance legislation. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Social Security will be looking at that. The agricultural compliance unit in the Inland Revenue was set up to ensure that taxes and national insurance are collected. That is one angle of enforcement. There are also provisions to prevent the harbouring and use of illegal immigrants. Enforcement can lead to the deportation of illegal workers or the imprisonment of operators. I would certainly support the latter as the first priority. It is the one way of stamping out that activity.
The use of illegal immigrants presents all kinds of opportunities for the exploitation of workers because of lack of knowledge of the English language and a fear of complaining. Such workers can be kept in appalling accommodation. Indeed, as we have seen recently, casuals employed by gangmasters can, over several weeks, end up owing gangmasters money, because gangmasters charge for transport and, perhaps, accommodation. We, in 1997, almost have tied labour in this country, since the longer such workers work, the more they owe the employer. That is outrageous and we must take every possible step to rule it out.
There are proper arrangements for seasonal workers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which of course allows foreign workers into the United Kingdom to undertake agricultural work. Such practice is quite normal. Up to 10,000 young foreign, non-European economic area workers may come into the UK to undertake work for up to six months between May and November—the key season of the year.
A single operator may at the same time commit offences against each of the several disparate legal requirements. Such requirements are regulated by more than one Department, and there are therefore difficulties. There have clearly been difficulties in the past, which I hope my colleagues and I can eliminate in future.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness highlighted the fact that abuse of the law can be tempting to people who are in receipt of social security benefit. They can go into work that is not subsequently declared. Pressure of mass unemployment in urban areas has caused that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, if the abuse occurs widely—which it does in his experience in Lincolnshire—the effect on the local rural economy and on the level of wages for the indigenous population is catastrophic. That has a knock-on effect and leads to rural deprivation on a grand scale. I represent an urban area, but I understand that our rural areas are not like the pictures on the front of chocolate boxes. In 1990, I made a speech from the Opposition Back Benches about rural deprivation. I understand that the problem can be as serious as in the inner cities; however, because it is more disparate and diffused, it is not highlighted in the same way.

Sir Richard Body: On the subject of enforcement, and given that more than 700 cowboy gangmasters operate in urban areas and elsewhere, how can the Government identify and monitor them? They are fly-by-night

characters who act as gangmasters for a couple of months, make a lot of money and disappear on holiday or to prison.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right and the Government must address the issue. Local task forces of enforcement agencies are set up to tackle the problems. They can involve the police, together with enforcement officers from the immigration and nationality directorate, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Social Security and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The focus must be to catch the operators, and we need to consider what more can be done.
All the produce ends up on the shelves of our shops and supermarkets, so the food sector has a responsibility. The great supermarket chains are sensitive to bad publicity when they are accused of exploiting workers in the third world. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness has described third-world conditions for the people who work on the land and the local population in Lincolnshire. Those who buy from the farmers have a responsibility to ensure that farmers use good gangmasters and not spiv gangmasters. I will ensure that the food industry addresses that issue.

Sir Richard Body: It has failed so far.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, but we have a new broom and a fresh mandate. Our instincts are different and we want to solve the problem. The British Retail Consortium has approached the National Farmers Union about the introduction of a code of practice to control the activities of gangmasters. I am in favour of codes of practice, but I will review every code of practice issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that they do not undermine the regulations approved by the House. Codes of practice can be of benefit, but they can be used to avoid enforcement.
The NFU issues guidance already to farmers on the employment of casual labour. Not every farmer is a member of the NFU, and we must try to reach those non-members too. The NFU has also set up a working party that is addressing the issue of gangmasters more directly. It will propose a code of practice and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will comment on that.
There are many anecdotes about abuse of the system. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness has given hard evidence of such abuse, but it is always difficult to provide that hard evidence in a court of law. Legislation is available to deal with the problem, but the question is whether it is being used. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the issue in the early days of this Parliament. The problems caused by some gangmasters have long been known, but the nature of gangmasters has changed. We must examine whether the existing legislation covers the new type of gangmaster.
As a first step, I will consider the existing laws and whether they meet the current situation. I will ensure that they are enforced in as concerted a manner as possible. Voluntary codes of practice may have a role


to play. The issue reached my desk only in the past 24 hours, but I will also inquire why the old gangmaster licensing system was abandoned in 1951. People then had prospects of full employment and nobody envisaged people being bussed from Birmingham, Manchester and Wolverhampton to the fields of Lincolnshire. The problem of the exploitation of illegal immigrants and people from eastern Europe was also non-existent. Harvesting was a family and community affair to get food into our shops.
I will give the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness a commitment that I will discuss the matter further with my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. When I have concluded those discussions, and—I hope—found a way forward, I will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for requesting this debate.

Mr. Peter Windass

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I start by thanking Madam Speaker for permitting me to raise the subject of this Adjournment debate.
Over the past three years, I have corresponded with several Government Departments and executive agencies on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Moira Windass, whose son, Peter Windass, was murdered in York in January 1994. That correspondence reveals serious shortcomings in the criminal justice system. It also reveals an inability on the part of Ministers to give accurate answers to clear, factual questions about the operation of the criminal justice system. I would have liked to put some questions to the Ministers concerned in an Adjournment debate, but I was prevented from doing so by the sub judice rule. I do not hold the present Minister responsible for the actions of the previous Government, but I was anxious to have this debate because I want the new Government to consider the administration of the criminal justice system and to improve it.
Peter Windass was a young man with his whole life ahead of him. He was an honest, upstanding and hard-working person; a qualified stonemason who worked on repairing and restoring York's city walls. When he died in January three years ago, it was as a result of an unprovoked attack. His attackers were arrested by the police within 24 hours. One has subsequently been convicted of murder and another of affray. From the point of view of the criminal justice system, it might appear that the case was dealt with satisfactorily. The crime has been solved, the criminals have been convicted and both have been sentenced to prison. However, from the point of view of the victim's family, the conduct of the case was far from satisfactory. The way that it has dragged on has prolonged and intensified their anguish.
It is impossible to describe the pain endured by the family of a murder victim. The family's feelings should be the primary concern of a criminal justice system. Instead, their feelings, questions and needs are treated as almost incidental to the judicial process. The family received good support from friends and voluntary bodies, including the Victim Support scheme in York, and from the police, but the courts appeared distant. The members of the family had to mingle in court with witnesses appearing for the defence, including people they knew from their neighbourhood who were threatening to them.
Various promises were made to the family by different parts of the justice system, but they were not kept. For example, the police promised them that they would be told of the date on which one of the accused would be sentenced, so that they could be in court to hear the sentence passed. That did not happen.
The justice process itself is painfully slow. My choice of the word "painfully" is careful. I do not use it as a figure of speech. I mean that the slowness causes pain for victims' families. It is almost three years since the murderer was convicted, yet still the tariff—the time that he will have to serve in prison—has not been confirmed, so the case has not ended. The family are still waiting to find out what penalty will be imposed on the man who murdered their son.
When justice is delayed, justice is denied. We need a justice system which, while allowing a defendant his rights in court, does not unnecessarily prolong proceedings.
When the family asked questions about the case, the answers they received from different parts of the justice system were sometimes contradictory and sometimes simply wrong. The police did not know what the Crown Prosecution Service was doing. The CPS and the Court Service were at sixes and sevens. The Court Service, the Prison Service and the probation service failed to work together, so the family received different answers to their questions from different parts of the system.
The criminal justice system has become fragmented. The problem is faced not by the Windass family alone, in one isolated case, but by many families of the victims of murder and manslaughter. Since the murder of her son, Mrs. Windass has played a prominent part in a voluntary body called SAMM—Support After Murder and Manslaughter. She knows that what happened to her family is, unfortunately, all too common.
We need a better co-ordinated criminal justice system, and I can give a few examples that illustrate that need. First, I wrote to Baroness Blatch, the former Minister at the Home Office, about the failure of the system to advise the family of the date of sentencing. The family were promised that they would be notified by a police officer, but that did not happen.
The Baroness replied:
it has never been a Crown Prosecution Service function to inform the police of new hearing dates in the Crown Court.
Well, that should be a Crown Prosecution Service function, and the CPS should also have to tell the victim—or in the case of murder or manslaughter, the victim's family—the dates of new hearings.
Secondly, at the time of the murder, one of the two accused, a man called Eaves, was supposed to be under curfew in Blackburn as a result of bail conditions imposed for a string of other offences. In a letter to me dated April 1995, another former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), said that Eaves's bail was subject to four conditions, one of which was that he had to report regularly to the police in Blackburn.
In January 1996 the former Minister retracted that statement, saying that Eaves was not on bail but subject to an arrest warrant, and that the bail conditions before he absconded and the arrest warrant was issued did not stipulate that he should report to Blackburn police.
I raised that matter with the chief constable of Lancashire, and it turned out that the bail conditions applied had required Eaves to report to the police. The chief constable wrote to me:
The bail conditions were initially imposed by Blackburn Magistrates' Court on 1st October 1993"—
about three months before the murder.
The Police are informed, routinely, by the Courts of any bail conditions. However, there are insufficient Police resources to individually monitor whether or not someone is residing at a particular address or complying with curfew conditions.
If a court imposes bail conditions to protect the public from a violent or potentially violent offender, we need to ensure that those conditions are met and enforced. Indeed, we must first ensure that the conditions are enforceable.
I have a third example. Eaves has a long record of repeatedly breaking bail conditions and absconding while on bail, yet when, part way through the criminal proceedings against him, the charge against him was reduced from one of murder to one of affray, the court offered him bail again, despite objections by both the police and the victim's family. Eaves was granted bail again, and he absconded again.
In a letter to me dated April 1995, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border—whom I have told I would raise the matter in the House today—said:
The Government is determined to see that the courts grant bail only in those circumstances where it is safe to do so".
That policy is right, but in Eaves's case it was not applied. He had absconded from bail on the night that the murder was committed.
In the same letter, the right hon. Gentleman said that Eaves
will be appearing at Preston Crown Court in due course when he will be sentenced. Under amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, when deciding what sentence to pass on Eaves, the court will have to take into consideration the fact that the offence was committed on bail as a factor aggravating the seriousness of the offence.
Quite right too—but when Eaves was sentenced, the judge was not informed that the offence was committed when he had absconded while on bail, so the penalty that he suffered, the prison sentence, did not take account of the aggravating factor that the Minister had said would be recognised.
It is hardly surprising that the family feel let down by the criminal justice system. Moreover, the former Government's mishandling of their changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board regulations meant that, on top of everything else, the family lost out on compensation payments. They received funeral expenses only. I shall write to my hon. Friend the new Minister separately about that matter, because it has undoubtedly compounded the family's feeling that the justice system was working against them.
I believe that the criminal justice system needs radical change, and I have four specific proposals for the Minister. First, the Crown Prosecution Service should have a duty to keep the victim—or, in the case of murder, the victim's family—informed about the progress of criminal proceedings.
Secondly, the CPS should co-ordinate its proceedings better with those of the police. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend that the Labour party's election manifesto proposal, that the Crown Prosecution Service should appoint a dedicated senior prosecutor attached to each police force, will address those two problems—the duty to keep the victim informed, and co-ordination between the police and the prosecution service.
Thirdly, tighter bail rules need to be introduced. If imposed by a court, a residential restriction to a particular address or a curfew at a particular time of day need to be enforceable and enforced. If they are not, there is no point in making them.
Fourthly, the Government must do everything they can, within the constraints of ensuring due process, to speed up the justice system. I find it intolerable that a year after the judge recommended a tariff, that tariff has still not been confirmed. Of course the convicted man should have


a right to make representations before the tariff is set, but the system should not allow the perpetrator of a crime to drag out the agony for the victim or the family for a further year. In this case, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give an assurance that the tariff will be set as soon as possible.
In general, we need a new approach to the criminal justice system which puts the victim at its heart. I ask the House one very simple question—if the criminal justice system does not seek to provide justice for the victim of a crime, who then does it provide justice for?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) on initiating an important debate on this general area of policy and, particularly, the family to whom he has referred. Only those who have lost a loved one at the hands of a murderer can begin to understand the pain and grief suffered by bereaved families. The impact can affect not only the immediate family, but friends, colleagues and neighbours. For all too many, the repercussions can last for the rest of their lives.
No one could fail to have enormous sympathy for families who are bereaved in such a sudden and violent way, and I wish to take this opportunity to express my sincerest sympathy to Mrs. Windass, who is following the debate today. My hon. Friend has illustrated the experience of many other families. Many families of murder victims—and many other victims of crime—feel neglected by the criminal justice system and a great deal more needs to be done to meet their needs.
I can assure the House that this Government will take action to redress the balance of the criminal justice system in favour of victims, while maintaining the interests of justice. We will ensure that all agencies give a high priority to treating victims with sensitivity and respect, and will listen to their views to improve the services they provide to victims and their families.
The Government want to ensure that victims are kept fully informed of progress in their case—one of the central issues raised by my hon. Friend—if they want to be. Victims of crime must be kept informed of significant developments in their case and should have the opportunity to explain the effect the crime has had on them.
Pilot studies are now under way in six police force areas; the police will keep victims informed of developments. This will be extended to two more areas shortly and will provide, in effect, a one-stop-shop pilot project. However, the idea that victims who want to know what is happening can look to the police to keep them informed is only one option. We will carefully examine the outcome of the pilot exercises, but we believe that this task should not be left to the police alone.
In respect of the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, I am happy to confirm the steps we are taking. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regard this as an important reform. Our plans to decentralise the CPS will enhance co-operation between local Crown prosecutors and the police. The new local CPS should be more involved in informing victims of its decisions.

Specifically, local Crown prosecutors, who will be in post under our reorganisation, will be accountable for their decisions and should be prepared to explain to victims their reasons for discontinuing or downgrading charges against offenders—at least in the most serious cases.
My hon. Friend says that it should be the responsibility of the CPS to keep families informed. That is a fair point. In 1994, I tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to place that requirement on the CPS, but they were not accepted by the then Government.
We also want local Crown prosecutors to be more proactive in meeting victims and witnesses—especially in cases where people have been killed as the result of a crime—to explain their decision on prosecution. The concern of families is shown by the fact that requests to meet the CPS are increasing in number; I am assured that no request is refused. Our plans to decentralise the CPS should achieve even greater responsiveness to the needs of victims of crime and their families.
The enforcement of bail conditions was another important matter that my hon. Friend referred to. It is not an easy one to deal with, as he will appreciate. In view of the serious series of events he described, I am happy to give him an undertaking to look into the circumstances surrounding the bail decisions to which he referred. There are cases where things go badly wrong, and that is why we want to improve the enforcement and oversight of bail conditions.
My hon. Friend referred also to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I believe that this is one of a number of matters that fall between two stools. The House will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—the previous Home Secretary—introduced a new scheme, which was challenged and had to be withdrawn. He then had to replace it with a second new scheme, which was introduced and debated in the House. I assure my hon. Friend that I will look at the situation and take advice as to whether there are steps that can be taken to alleviate the problem. Again it is complicated, but I will look into it carefully to see what can be done.
It is clear that the families of homicide victims need assistance because of the deep distress caused by the tragic event. It is now common practice for police forces to appoint one officer on the investigation team as a family liaison officer. The victim's family will be given that officer's name and telephone number and the officer will be responsible for answering any questions the family may have about the case and for keeping them informed of developments throughout the police investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. This includes the progress and outcome of Court of Appeal cases—a point to which I shall return—where the police will tell the family quickly of the date of the appeal, if the offender is granted bail pending the appeal and, of course, the outcome, when it is known. Obviously that will not be a perfect system as, in some cases, the police do not have the information to pass on. We must tighten the procedures and we will build on best practice so that best practice becomes the norm. We will keep the matter under review.
An information pack is now available for the families of murder victims. The police will offer the families a copy of the pack, which was developed by the Home Office, to help anyone bereaved as the result of a crime.


The information pack contains practical information to help the family and friends of the victim, both in the immediate aftermath of the crime and in the longer term. All police forces have copies of the pack, which will be monitored to ensure that no family is left out. Again, we will keep this under review.
As well as receiving information about case progress, it is right that the victims should have the opportunity to explain how the crime has affected them. It is easy to forget that all crime is about the victims and that that is what the process is about. Ways of doing so are being tested in the pilot project.
As hon. Members will appreciate, giving people the chance to make a formal statement about how the crime has affected them raises a number of sensitive issues, which we will need to consider carefully when we evaluate the pilot study. Furthermore, when the victim has been killed, the issue of who should be allowed to make a victim statement as a secondary victim needs further careful thought. In some cases, it will be obvious that the position is not clear cut. In the case of homicide, the majority of victims—54 per cent. of males and 73 per cent. of females—knew the suspect before they were killed and 40 per cent. of females were killed by current and former partners. In such cases, the relatives' views would form part of their case for leniency and it would be far from obvious who was the right person, if anyone, to offer the contrary view as a secondary victim.
The complication of these issues should not and will not stop us engaging in them, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no simple, straightforward way to deal with them immediately.
My hon. Friend made a number of serious points about the setting of the tariff and the period taken to reach that conclusion. He is right to point out that it is more than three years since the murder and more than two since conviction, yet the tariff has not been set for the life sentence. That is another common area of concern to the families of murder victims.
In every case in which a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, the family of the victim have the right to know what tariff has been set—the minimum period to be served in prison for the purpose of retribution and deterrence. A decision on the tariff, however, has to await the outcome of any appeal to the Court of Appeal in case the conviction is quashed or the appeal sheds new light on the offence. Since the appeal process can be lengthy, it may indeed be many months after sentence before the tariff is set and the victim's family can be told. That is the general situation.
I understand that in Peter Windass's case, the Prison Service is awaiting representations from his killer's solicitors about the tariff. When those are received, Ministers will be able to set a tariff. I can assure my hon. Friend that Mrs. Windass will be informed of the outcome as soon as possible after that. I can go a little further, as officials are pressing solicitors for the representations to be make as quickly as possible and today I have discussed ways in which we can speed up the process of advising relatives about the progress of appeals and that of setting the tariff.
Clearly, improvements can be made. For instance, in this case it appeared that the dismissal of an appeal heard by a single judge was going to be followed by an appeal to a full court—leave was given for that second appeal.

The fact that that was dropped after 14 days was not picked up until much later. Clearly that added to the delay in providing information to the family. That is the type of gap and difficulty in the process that we will tighten up.

Mr. Bayley: I am grateful to hear my hon. Friend's commitment that he will speed up the process in this case. I would also be grateful if he would ask the solicitors how long the court has been waiting for representations from the murderer's solicitors and consider the more general point of whether that is longer than is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity.

Mr. Michael: Certainly I will be happy to consider that when I study the circumstances. I was pointing out that there has been a gap in our being kept informed. We have found out why it happened and will try to use that knowledge to learn lessons and ensure that it does not happen again.
On mentally disordered offenders, the arrangements for the probation service to keep victims and their families informed of post-sentence developments do not apply to victims of offenders who are sent to hospital. That does not apply in this case, so I will leave that matter to one side, but I have flagged it up as another area of concern.
Victims of crime and their families do not merely need timely information about their case and to have their views taken into account; they also deserve appropriate support to help meet their practical and emotional needs, whether or not their case goes to court. My hon. Friend tells me that Victim Support was helpful to the family in this case, although I must stress that it is no substitute for sensitive support and help from every part of the criminal justice system.
The Home Office provides substantial funding to Victim Support nationally, which provides practical help and emotional support to victims of all types of crime. Our grant this year is £11.7 million, which will support the work of about 365 local schemes and branches nationwide. The grant also supports the work of the Crown court witness service, which has been established at all 77 Crown court centres in England and Wales to help victims, witnesses and their families cope with the stress of a court appearance.
Victim Support is working closely with another organisation, Support After Murder and Manslaughter—known as SAMM—to which my hon. Friend referred, to improve and develop services to the families of murder victims. The network of self-help groups throughout the country puts bereaved families in touch with each other and allows them to share their anguish and their anger, to talk to someone who has been in the same situation and to gain strength from knowing that they are not alone in their grief. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs. Windass is a member of its executive committee and is using her experience to help others. That sort of mutual support and understanding is perhaps as helpful as anything else in enabling families to come to terms with what has happened and I pay tribute to those like her who turn their tragedy and misery into a springboard for helping others.
Through our grant to Victim Support, the Home Office has provided funds to help run the SAMM office located at Victim Support's national office in London. I am sure that the association between the two organisations will enable Victim Support and SAMM to develop and improve further the services that they offer to families bereaved by violence.
We are also committed to ensuring that the courts become much more sensitive to the needs and interests of victims and witnesses through better facilities, information, support services and separate prosecution and defence waiting facilities wherever possible. Some progress has already been made. The court users charter explains the standards of service that victims and witnesses can expect from the Court Service. The victims charter sets out clearly 27 standards of service that victims should be able to expect from all the criminal justice agencies, including the courts, and explains which agency provides each service and how victims can complain if they do not get the level of service promised. Shortly, we plan to issue a revised version of the Home Office "Witness in Court" leaflet, which explains to victims and witnesses what happens at court.
All those changes will help, but central to the needs of victims and families is their wish to see justice done. People such as Mrs. Windass know from their experiences the deep truth in the saying that justice delayed is justice denied. No one can have a monopoly on the feelings or needs of families of murder victims; every situation is different, each family will respond differently to the devastating tragedy, but all of us have the same goal—to try to meet the needs of those families in the best way possible, whatever they are.
The Government accept that the current situation is not perfect and that improvements can be made. We will work with the criminal justice agencies, Victim Support, SAMM and other support groups to improve the service that victims and their families get from the criminal

justice system. We will speed up justice, as our manifesto commitments made clear. We will start with youth justice, halving the time that it takes to get young offenders to court and establishing a fast-track system for the persistent young offenders who cause so much chaos and devastation in communities throughout the land. We must tackle violence in our society, bearing in mind the fact that the number of violent crimes increased by more than 11 per cent. last year alone and is 166 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. We must nip things in the bud when things start to go wrong. We must improve consistency and progression in sentencing, to tackle the scandal exposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when we were in opposition.
That is the background against which I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take action on the issues and concerns that he has raised in this short debate today. I am sure that he will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when speaking to the Police Federation at its annual conference today, will also be setting out a vision of the future and ways in which we intend to tackle and improve the operation of the criminal justice system, in the interests of victims, the communities that have been damaged by crime and those who have felt the scourge of violent crime in recent years.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a series of extremely important issues and I look forward to dealing with them in practical terms in the coming months.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Great Lakes Region

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further assistance her Department plans to provide in the Great Lakes region of Africa; and if she will make a statement. [310]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I should explain that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), is at a meeting of the Caribbean development bank, so I am here on my own today.
Since 1993, the United Kingdom has committed £178 million—bilaterally and through the European Union—to help the people of the Great Lakes region to survive. The population desperately need peace and security to rebuild their lives. We hope to work constructively with Mr. Kabila's new Administration, with other Governments in the region and with international partners to try to secure stability and sustained economic and social development in the region.

Mr. Ainger: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I be the first formally to congratulate her on her richly deserved appointment? Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the establishment of a new Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What plans does she have to assist that Government to establish democracy and rebuild the economy? What plans does she have to assist the Government of Rwanda to ensure that there are speedy and fair trials of those accused of genocide?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks.
The fall of the Mobutu regime in the Congo—as it now is again—is a fantastically important opportunity for Africa and for the long-suffering people of Zaire. An Administration in Kinshasa committed to respect for human rights and national consensus in transition to representative and elected government will be an enormously important step forward for the region.
Tomorrow I shall discuss with Vice-President Kagame of Rwanda the way in which we can work together to secure that aim, and next week I shall meet ex-President Nyerere. We all want to work with the new Government, and if they will respect human rights, we will work together with the whole international community to bring economic and social development to that very important part of Africa.
It is also important that the Rwandan refugees return home, that there should be proper trials for those accused of genocide and that human rights are protected so that the people of Rwanda can also look forward to social development in a more stable and peaceful future. Again, we shall do everything in our power to work in partnership with the Government of Rwanda to achieve that aim, constantly stressing to them that respect for human rights is crucial to further progress for their country.

Third-world Debt

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had regarding the reduction of third-world debt; and if she will make a statement. [311]

Clare Short: I had an encouraging meeting with the president of the World bank last week. The Government strongly support the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and are pressing for its speedy implementation. Our aim is to produce tangible results quickly for the most needy countries and to bring about a once and for all exit from their debt problems.

Mr. Mullin: I welcome my right hon. Friend to one of the best jobs in the Government and I am sure that she will do it well. Has she given consideration to persuading her colleagues at the Treasury unilaterally to remit some of the debt owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department by some of the most indebted countries, and will she make any relaxation of indebtedness conditional upon respect for human rights?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To be fair, the previous Administration worked hard in their later years to achieve success on debt cancellation. Britain's record on cancelling debt owed bilaterally is very good, but we cannot make further progress without getting partnerships across the international community. It is important that we get momentum behind the initiative and start to make progress.
Uganda has been named as the first candidate to exit from debt, and Britain has volunteered to make an extra payment to make up for the fact that the African development bank is not in a position to make its payment. The previous Administration made that clear, and we are standing by that commitment. We hope that other Governments will work similarly. Once we get progress and success, I believe that the initiative can be built upon and that we can begin to give some of the neediest countries in the world the chance to work their way out of poverty.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, offer my congratulations to the right hon. Lady. She has a warm heart and an independent spirit. I suspect that she will need both qualities, not least in dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does she agree that it is disappointing that only Uganda has entered the framework set down for the highly indebted poor countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank last year, and that Uganda will be eligible for debt relief only in 1998? What practical steps can be taken to maintain the momentum to which the right hon. Lady referred? Is she satisfied that the criteria laid down in the heavily indebted poor countries initiative are wide enough to allow the most rapid entry of as many countries as possible into its framework?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He is right that we should like more rapid progress, but we have to take partner countries with us. Not all countries are as persuaded of the need to make progress as Britain is.


Uganda has been named, and there is preliminary agreement on the eligibility of three other countries—Bolivia, Burkina Faso and Cite d'Ivoire.
I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is anxious to show what a warm heart he has on this matter, and we shall do everything in our power to ensure that rapid progress is made. Any support, suggestions or help from any part of the House on ways in which we can achieve that outcome will be welcome.

Dr. Fox: I, too, unreservedly welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. We should pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for their work on debt reduction. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Lady's fine words on the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a warm heart on the matter. However, a warm heart will not reduce debt. How much do the Government intend to make available for the initiative? They said that they would make money available when they were in opposition.

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have already paid unreserved tribute to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Uganda is first and Britain is committed to making additional payments because the African development bank is not in a position to pay its share. We cannot say exactly what the amount will be until the calculations are made, but Britain is in advance of other countries. We are determined to make progress on Uganda and very keen for our partners to make the same sort of commitments. We shall do all in our power to make fast progress.
It is in the interests of justice, and of the whole world, that we should deal with the desperate poverty entrenched by debt. In sub-Saharan Africa, 40 per cent. of people live in poverty. We shall make no progress until we deal with debt.

Kenya

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid projects that the United Kingdom is currently funding in Kenya. [312]

Clare Short: Within the context of the overall policy review that I am conducting, I intend to concentrate our aid programme on improving the access of the poor to essential health services and basic education, and on finding ways to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers and the urban poor.

Mr. Cox: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and I welcome her reply. Will she discuss with the Kenyan authorities two issues which cry out for urgent action? The first is the plight of street children and their horrendous suffering. The second is the substantial increase in the number of people with AIDS. Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider helping on those two issues with advice and, if possible, with financial aid?

Clare Short: Britain is a large donor in Kenya and, potentially, can attempt to use its influence. Developments

in Kenya are worrying and patchy. There has been a deterioration in the level of primary education and a growth in the level of poverty. As my hon. Friend said, the problem of AIDS is also very serious. We are reviewing all our spending and commitments so as to concentrate on those in greatest need. The two groups in Kenya to whom my hon. Friend referred are obviously in great need.

Mr. Brooke: It is a pleasure to see the Secretary of State in her place. May I ask her whether the aid programme is funding the secondary education in Kenya of any refugees from southern Sudan where secondary education is in turmoil?

Clare Short: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I will find out and write to him.

Aid and Trade Provision

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to carry out a review of the aid and trade provision. [313]

Clare Short: As I have said, we are reviewing all our expenditure programmes. I am determined to concentrate our efforts on poverty eradication. This means that we are necessarily reviewing the aid and trade provision.

Mr. Wareing: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and I am reassured by her answer. During any review, will she consider the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs during the last Parliament when it looked into the Pergau scandal? Most of the ATP aid was being focused by the Tory Government on Indonesia and China—two countries which do not have the best human rights records. Among the developing countries, Indonesia is the sixth largest recipient of direct foreign investment. How could the Tory Government have justified concentrating 17 per cent. of ATP aid on that country? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that we should be directing that aid towards the poorest peoples in the world.

Clare Short: During the review we shall, of course, take account of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report. I share my hon. Friend's concerns and I am reviewing our aid programme to Indonesia. Many people argue that the aid and trade provision does not meet either development or commercial objectives very well. We want absolutely to concentrate all our efforts and all our resources on the eradication of poverty. That means that we must look seriously at the way in which the aid and trade provision has pulled our aid spend in a different direction.

Mr. Wilkinson: In greeting the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, I welcome her review of Britain's overseas aid programme, particularly the review of the aid and trade provision that she has announced. Will she focus much more on the aid and trade provision to the mutual benefit of British industry and commerce and the recipient countries, thereby enhancing political and commercial connections between them while at the same time diminishing Britain's contribution to the European


Union's aid programme, which is not nearly so well targeted as the British one and is often wasteful and misapplied?

Clare Short: As I have said, we are reviewing the aid and trade provision, but perhaps our thinking goes in a slightly different direction from that of the hon. Gentleman. The aid programme is not about the promotion of commercial opportunities. That is an important objective of Government policy, but the aid programme should be part of a bigger strategy for eliminating abject poverty in the world. That is in the long-term interests of everyone and, indeed, of commercial activity. If there is less poverty, there will be more commerce.
On European Union aid, the hon. Gentleman will know that it was his Government who, in Edinburgh, made an agreement which meant that up to 40 per cent. of our aid spend should go through the EU and unfortunately I have inherited that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the performance of EU aid is patchy and I shall be doing everything in my power to use our influence in the EU to try to get the concentration on poverty eradication in EU spending in the same way as we want to achieve that from our own aid spending.

Child Labour

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to stop the exploitation of child labour in third-world countries. [314

Clare Short: The tragedy of child labour, bad though it is, is not just the current exploitation of children but the fact that they are deprived of education, which will blight their lives permanently. We intend to strengthen our support for the International Labour Organisation's efforts in the developing countries to eliminate hazardous and exploitative child labour. Promoting universal primary education—an achievable objective throughout the world if the world community decided that it wished to achieve it—is a crucial part of the solution.

Mr. Canavan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. Last week Christian Aid published a report on the exploitation of children in the manufacture of sports goods. An Indian child as young as seven receives just 12p for hand-stitching an Eric Cantona football which retails in Britain at £9.99. Will my right hon. Friend appeal to all sports stars, sports clubs and the sports industry to co-operate with Governments, non-governmental organisations and the International Labour Organisation to phase out the exploitation of child labour and to introduce, where appropriate, special development measures to protect family income and children's rights to health and education?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Christian Aid report was very useful and we welcome it strongly and applaud the publicity accrued on this serious issue. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for not calling for an immediate boycott of the goods involved. People who are concerned about child labour often do that, but it can lead to the children being thrown into an even worse

situation in which they have to live as beggars on the streets or are even forced into prostitution. We need the type of partnerships that my hon. Friend suggested.
We should like sports firms and others who find that the products that they buy are produced by child labour to use their influence to press our Government, the companies involved and Governments in developing countries to plan the phasing out of child labour. In many countries, parents cannot find work, but children are employed. In this respect, the history of our own country is an experience on which we can draw. There must be regulation to phase out child labour and ensure that children are in education, where they belong, so that they have brighter prospects.

Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Lady focus particularly on the evil of bonded labour in those countries where it is still rife? Such labour is the 20th-century equivalent of slavery, and children especially suffer from it.

Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Bonded labour is a scourge of the world. As he says, it is akin to slavery and we shall take action on it. I believe that we should take whatever action we can, in co-operation with other Governments.
The proposal for a human rights clause in the World Trade Organisation so that no country can obtain access to the most privileged terms of trade unless it guarantees the right of labour to organise and that there will be no child labour and no bonded labour is one of the ways forward for the world. We shall join with the American Government and others in supporting that call, which will provide a long-term solution.
In the meantime, we shall take what action we can, wherever we can.

Mr. Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State and I welcome what she has just said. Is she prepared to use the Government's influence on the World Trade Organisation to ensure that all future trade negotiations and trade strategies which are agreed will include a specific commitment to full recognition of all ILO conditions by all signatory states, as a major part of ending the disgraceful exploitation of children and ensuring decent rights for all workers in developing countries?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We consider that the pressure for a human rights clause in the World Trade Organisation is crucial, not only to make progress on child labour but to prevent the globalisation of the world economy leading to the pushing down of standards across the world. Minimum conditions that all countries are required to meet before they obtain access to the most privileged terms of trade will provide a platform for everyone across the world. It is a very important change and we shall do all that we can to achieve it.

Aid Target

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the


Government to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product in their contribution to overseas aid; and if she will make a statement. [315]

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she estimates that spending on overseas aid will reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. [318]

Clare Short: We remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. United Nations aid target and to reversing the decline in United Kingdom spending. As we said during the election campaign, however, we shall work within existing ceilings this year and next. I am currently reviewing expenditure plans and putting in place a coherent strategy to tackle global poverty, which will be published in the White Paper promised in the Queen's Speech. As we demonstrate progress, additional resources will be made available.

Mr. Baker: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her position and congratulate her on her strong commitment to and understanding of development issues. Does she share my concern that this country now contributes just 0.28 per cent. of GDP in overseas aid compared with 0.51 per cent. in 1979? The rich in this country have had tax cuts, but the poor in many countries have lacked basic food and shelter.
Given the right hon. Lady's strong commitment, is she capable of persuading her colleagues—particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to ensure that, despite the stringent financial conditions that he has imposed on the Cabinet, sufficient funds will be made available to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent.? Will she set a time scale for that?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: Labour's record on aid is a proud one—we reached 0.51 per cent. of GDP and rising towards the target. The Conservative Government, who so rightly have lost office, left us with a contribution of 0.27 per cent. of GDP—even worse than the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave.
We need a higher aid spend, but we need to spend our aid money better. We need coherence across all our policies on debt, at the International Monetary Fund, the World bank, the European Union and the Lome renegotiations. In that way, we can focus our efforts on the measurable eradication of poverty.
While I can hardly change the Department's aid spend this year—although I can do so at the margins—because it takes so long to work up sensible and strong projects, I am busy working to redirect our energies next year. It is in the year after that, however, that I shall need more resources because we shall have plans in place to spend the money properly. I hope and intend that that will be so.

Mr. Luff: In adding my voice to the general welcome that has been extended to the right hon. Lady in her new role, may I ask if I am right in interpreting her previous answer by suggesting that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer may or may not have a warm heart, he is most unlikely to have an open purse? If those are the circumstances that she faces, can she give any clearer indication of how she will make the aid spend more effective?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that I had been talking about that for some

considerable time this afternoon. Too much of the current aid spend goes on projects which are worth while in themselves but are not focused on the eradication of poverty. I am very supportive of the plans outlined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee report, which stated that the world should set itself targets including that of halving world poverty by the year 2015. All the donor countries would then work in partnership with developing countries to reach measurable progress.
If we work in such a way, we may then begin to believe that in the new millennium we shall see the end of abject poverty in the world. Currently, poverty affects one in four people. The aid spend is an important part of that plan, but it must be based within strategies which deliver progress; otherwise, money may be spent on good causes, but we shall not reach progress.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cares very deeply about that agenda and I am extremely optimistic that he and I will work beneficially together to get the progress that we want.

Mr. Cunliffe: Will my right hon. Friend assure Labour Members that a Labour Government will never repeat the cut imposed by the Tory Chancellor in his Budget this year, when he reduced overseas aid by £180 million? That deliberate cut imposed untold hardship and misery on hundreds of thousands of African and Asian families so that the price of gin and whisky in this country could be reduced by 27p. Such was the motive behind that attempt at general election popularity.

Clare Short: The Conservative party fought the election on a commitment to move to an aid spend of 0.7 per cent. of GDP, but year upon year the Conservative Government cut the aid budget. As I said earlier, they also gave up to 40 per cent. of our spend to the EU and thus lost control of it. Their record is poor. We fought the election on a commitment to halt the decline and to increase the aid spend and we intend to keep all our manifesto commitments.

Dr. Godman: When my right hon. Friend conducts her expenditure review, will she examine closely the way in which Brussels officials manage the know-how and PHARE funds? In terms of devolution, surely Britain's contributions to the funds should be managed by my right hon. Friend and her Department.

Clare Short: The know-how fund is managed from Britain by my Department, with the Foreign Office co-operating. The PHARE fund is a European Union programme; it therefore has to be managed differently, but it should be complementary. The spending on that fund, like that on all other funds, must be reviewed to make it more effective than under the previous Administration.

Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State was correct when she said that we need to spend all our money better. Is she aware that Oxfam says that 19 water tanks, providing 28,500 people with 10 litres of clean water a day, could have been provided through our aid budget for the absurd cost of the Foreign Secretary's glitzy presentation of the mission statement? Was that money well spent?

Clare Short: I have to say that that is an extremely cheap point—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman served


as a Minister in a Government who have just been booted out of office and who consistently cut, cut and cut the aid budget to give tax cuts to their wealthy friends. The new Administration will ensure that our aid spending eradicates poverty as effectively as possible, but it is also our duty to announce the priorities of our foreign policy—and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did.

Africa

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her priorities in respect of Africa. [316]

Clare Short: I aim to work in partnership with African Governments—what we need is not donor countries telling other countries what to do, but partnerships—and with international institutions on strategies to eliminate poverty through sustainable economic and social development. That will be underpinned through support for good governance and human rights. Priority will be given to programmes which help the poorest people in Africa. As I have said, we intend to outline our strategy in the promised White Paper.

Mr. Purchase: I add my voice to those welcoming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her post and wish her well in that work. She will bring a refreshing change to it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the resolution of the conflict in southern Africa is a considerable priority and that it is important to support the efforts of the South African Government and, in particular, President Mandela in his current efforts to bring peace and to resolve that conflict? In so doing, we shall lift out of poverty many of the millions of people who have had conflict heaped on them in circumstances of dire poverty, leading to a worsening of the situation almost beyond human comprehension.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: poverty often leads to war, which just worsens the cycle. Africa has suffered gravely, but there are grounds for optimism. The absolute decline in its economy has been turned around. Governments such as Uganda, Ghana, Ethiopia and Eritrea are doing well. The change of regime in the Congo could be an enormous opportunity for progress. That would also help to resolve the situation in Angola. There is now a real opportunity for Africa, and we must work in partnership with those Governments to make progress.

Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. Although there can be optimism at recent developments in Africa, does she agree that one of the major priorities should be a move towards better government among some of the countries to which we give aid? Will she assure the House that she will use the ability as a donor Government to insist on better practice by many Governments in Africa, linked to aid?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The needy people of Africa need good governance so that there can be partnerships with developed countries and real progress can be made. We shall use all our influence

to try to achieve that aim. The beauty now is that Africa has its own examples of good governance and success, such as Uganda and Ghana, which means that there is the chance of a home-grown African model spreading to others. So yes—we shall do that and there are real opportunities now.

Rain Forests

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she plans to take to ensure that the United Kingdom's international development policies contribute to the preservation of the world's rain forests. [317]

Clare Short: My Department has 200 forestry projects under way in 41 countries at a total cost of £200 million.
At the UN General Assembly special session on environment and development in June, which I hope to attend with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we shall work to secure more effective international action to improve forest management.

Mr. Jack: I thank the right hon. Lady for her very comprehensive answer. Is she aware of the tremendous support being given by a range of British companies to a rain forest protection programme in Guyana undertaken by the Amerindians, using modern technology to publicise worldwide the threat to their rain forests? One of the industrial partners in that project is British Telecom. If British Telecom is affected by the windfall tax and has to reduce its expenditure on that project, will the right hon. Lady undertake to lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer to safeguard that vital rainfall—wind forest—rain forest protection plan?

Clare Short: I am not sure whether I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly—is he advocating a rainfall tax? I am very disappointed in him: questions about the future of the world and its poorest people and the future of the rain forests are important to the whole of humanity and should not be used to make cheap political points.

PRIME MINISTER

Madam Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), I remind the House of the new method of handling engagements questions. The Member with the first such question should call out the number of his or her question in the normal way. After the Prime Minister has described his engagements, that Member will be asked to put a supplementary question. For the second and subsequent engagements questions, the Members who tabled the question should not call out the number of the question but simply put their supplementary question as soon as I call their name. Members with substantive questions on the Order Paper should, of course, continue to call the number of the question.

Engagements

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 May. [340]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have had various meetings with Ministers today to discuss the


implementation of our election pledges. I will have various meetings later, in particular in relation to young people and skills. In addition, I have attended a meeting of the Labour party's national executive.

Mr. Taylor: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his role of answering questions and I am grateful to him for finding the time in his diary to do so. At some point he might consult the House about these changes. I also wish him well in dealing with the massed ranks of his own Back Benchers as they lose their political virginity.
Will the Prime Minister agree today to compensate pensioners for any damage done to pension funds as a result of the windfall tax and changes in advance corporation tax which he might propose?

The Prime Minister: I first have to say yes, indeed, we have had a busy day because this Government, unlike the last Government, are governing in the interests of the people of this country. Secondly, the windfall tax will not harm pensioners at all. What did, however, harm pensioners was the last Government's imposition of VAT on fuel. It is precisely for that reason that we propose cutting it.

Ms Corston: It is an honour to be called during the Prime Minister's first Question Time to make a serious attempt to question the Prime Minister. Given that at present only one crime in 50 leads to a conviction, does my right hon. Friend recognise the need for effective measures to prevent crime as well as a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence? Will he tell us what measures the Government will take to prevent crime?

The Prime Minister: Certainly I shall. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing a series of measures that I hope will have a beneficial effect on cutting crime. He is of course announcing first, that we say that children between the ages of 10 and 13 are able to tell the difference between right and wrong and the law should be changed in that respect. Secondly, we are going to halve the amount of time it takes to get persistent juvenile offenders to court. Thirdly, he has announced a review of the entire youth justice system. Much of the behaviour of some young tearaways and thugs makes life hell for people. We are committed to taking action and again, unlike the previous Administration, action we will take.

Mr. Swinney: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government will argue for a zonal lifting of the European beef ban? If they will, will he outline a time scale within which we can expect the lifting to occur? Will he also guarantee that the beef ban will be lifted in Scotland at the same time as it is lifted in Northern Ireland? [341]

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are in negotiations with the European Commission and with our European partners to try to get the best possible deal on lifting the beef ban. One part of lifting the ban, of course, is a certified herd scheme. It is important not only that we apply that scheme in Northern Ireland, which has a traceability scheme, but that we discover how we can lift the ban in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I should tell the House that the BSE situation that the Government have inherited is quite appalling, and not only because of its expense. The way in which the negotiations were handled was a disgrace, and it will take some time to sort out the situation. The early indications, however, are that we are able to get a far better deal than the previous Government. We shall do everything that we possibly can, in the interests not only of the farming industry but of Britain's good standing abroad.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: Is the Prime Minister aware of widespread public concern about the growth of drug abuse in the United Kingdom? Over the past decade, there has been a fivefold increase in the number of drug offences. Will he provide an outline of the Government's plans to deal with the drugs crisis?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend may know, we are committed to proper testing and treatment for all offenders who have a drugs problem. Additionally, however—as we announced before the general election—we will appoint one individual, whom we will call the drug tsar, who will co-ordinate all aspects of the fight against drug abuse and the link between drug abuse and crime. In many parts of the United Kingdom, as much as 50 per cent.—possibly more—of crimes are linked to drug abuse. It is absolutely essential that we bear down on every single aspect of the problem. By putting one person—who will be responsible to the Home Secretary—in charge of all aspects of co-ordinating Government policy on the problem, we believe that we will give ourselves a far better chance of dealing with that evil in our midst.

Mr. Ashdown: May I, first, welcome the Prime Minister's attempt to find a new format for Prime Minister's Question Time? Such an attempt was undoubtedly too bold for some, but the Prime Minister's efforts will have been worth it if we find a format that is a little less confrontational and a little more rational.
Is it still the Government's intention, in the next two years, to spend not a penny more on education than the Conservative Government whom they defeated?

The Prime Minister: First, I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the change in the format of Prime Minister's questions. I hope that, in time, it will prove to be for the benefit of all hon. Members.
There are differences on education spending between ourselves and the previous Government. The first important difference is that we will phase out the assisted places scheme and reduce class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds. Secondly, the nursery voucher scheme will, rightly, be replaced by proper nursery education for our children. Thirdly, the windfall tax will have some impact on the skills and training part of the education budget, helping young people back into work through better skills and training.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows that the figures that Ministers quote on the abolition of assisted places do not add up. Even if they did, however, surely it is true that the Government will not deliver next year, and that they may deliver very little in the subsequent year. Therefore, are not the consequences of the Government's policy that teachers who were to be sacked because of


Conservative policies will be sacked, that class sizes that were to rise next autumn will rise, and that the serious situation in books and equipment facing schools this winter because of Conservative policies will not get better under a Labour Government, and may even get worse?

The Prime Minister: No; I do not accept that. Reducing class sizes will be achieved partly by employing extra teachers. The right hon. Gentleman said that the figures do not add up, but they were checked by the National Foundation for Educational Research, which found that they added up, and even that there was money to spare. It is very important to understand that the vast majority of people—parents who use the state education system—understand that it will take time to put things right. It will take time, because of what we have inherited. Those people now know that they have a Government who have the right values, who are committed to the state education system and who, over time, will improve the system, as we have promised to do.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Having fought the general election on a platform of no hundred days of dynamic action—the definition of dynamic action changing from one Prime Minister to another—having introduced a Queen's Speech with 26 Bills, much to the delight of the public, having made the Bank of England independent, having severed supervision of the banking system from the Bank of England and having introduced a new system of regulation for the City of London, can the Prime Minister tell the House what he proposes as an encore?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is, of course, important that we start to make a difference in the areas where the people of this country elected us to make a difference—in our schools, in rebuilding our national health service, in giving hope to our young people and in the measures, as my hon. Friend rightly says, in relation to the Bank of England. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor took decisive action at the very beginning and he is to be congratulated on that. It is far better now that we take the politics out of setting interest rates and that we do not play politics with people's mortgages. As the National Association of Estate Agents said just the other day, in the long term that will lead to lower mortgage rates and, therefore, to a better deal for home owners.

Mr. Major: In view of the apparent confusion in briefings from Ministers over recent days, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which companies and which classes of companies are likely to be liable to the windfall tax? Will he also please explain to the House why the chairman of British Telecom apparently felt that his company would not be liable?

The Prime Minister: I heard what the chairman of British Telecom said the other day and I was delighted that he indicated that he had the good judgment to vote Labour in the general election. The idea, however, that the chairman of British Telecom or anyone else was in any doubt that we intended to introduce a windfall tax is rather hard to believe. As the right hon. Gentleman knows because we have said this many times, the actual companies will be decided by the Chancellor in accordance with precedent, which is to make any moves

in relation to the Budget in the Budget. That is the proper way in which to do it. The companies and the amount of the windfall tax will be decided by my right hon. Friend in the normal way.

Mr. Major: Sir lain seems to be rather regretting his vote already, but I will let that pass for the moment. I find it surprising that the House of Commons is to be the last to be told who will be liable to the tax in view of the private briefings that are going on. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm to the House that no one acting in his capacity or no one from the Labour party when in opposition gave any indication, clearly or in terms of a nod and a wink, that British Telecom would not be included in the tax. Can the Prime Minister be categorical about that please?

The Prime Minister: I certainly can be categorical. Everybody has known that the decisions on who—whether British Telecom or anyone else—will be liable for the windfall tax will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the normal way. It is perfectly obvious that that should be the case. Prior to the Budget, it would be wholly wrong if my right hon. Friend announced the companies or the amounts of the windfall tax. In following that precedent we are following precisely what the previous Conservative Government did in relation to the windfall tax on banks.

Mr. Major: The House will note that the right hon. Gentleman replied in the generality but did not reply specifically. He did not provide the House with the categorical assurance I asked him for; perhaps he will do so in just a moment. If the tax proceeds, it will lead to an extra tax on gas, water, electricity and telephones. I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). If the tax gives rise to an increase in bills for many people on low incomes, will the right hon. Gentleman follow the precedent set by the previous Government and increase social security benefits to compensate for that? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if he does not, the populist tax on fat cats he proposes will be a tax that hits most those who have least?

The Prime Minister: I shall resist the temptation to say that that was the soundbite, because I have a feeling that I used to use a few of those myself at one time. No, that is not the case. There is a cap on prices. Some of the regulators have already said that they would not consider it right for the windfall tax to lead to any increase in prices.
The reason for introducing the windfall tax is clear. There is no doubt that vast excess profits were made. There is also no doubt that it is essential that we give hope and opportunity to those hundreds of thousands of young people at present without them in our society. There will be a great deal of agreement, not just among those who do not have opportunity, but even among those who are perfectly well off, that if we do not tackle the problems of a growing underclass of people cut off from society's mainstream without any chance of a job, with poor educational opportunities, without the chance to do well in life, we shall end up, as the previous Government did, paying more and more in welfare bills and having less and less for future investment.

Mr. Bermingham: May I make a simple plea to my right hon. Friend on behalf of St. Helens, which is an


industrial town? Perhaps he could find time to have a word in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest to him that, if slanted towards encouraging investment in industry, the June Budget would undoubtedly help our manufacturing base—for home consumption and overseas exports—and thus the welfare of all our people.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I have no doubt that the Chancellor will receive a great deal of advice and assistance in the weeks ahead. He will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I have no doubt that he will take it into account.

Mr. Luff: How will the Prime Minister fund his programme for young people when the money from the windfall tax dries up? All the experts agree that it will and that he will need extra money. [342]

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman seems to understand, as his leader did not, that money is needed to tackle the problem. I agree wholeheartedly on that. The windfall levy is a one-off, but by getting young people off benefit and into work, we shall save money in the long term. Conservative Members shake their heads, but there is no doubt that there are young people in this country who are leaving school without any proper qualifications. If they do not get the right chances on skills and apprenticeships, they will never make anything of their lives.
During the election campaign, I met some third-generation families in which the father has not worked, the son has not worked and the grandson is not going to work either. Unless we try to give them some sort of chance to escape from that welfare dependency, we shall be in this difficulty for ever.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the problems that our communities face not just from the causes of crime but from the underlying aggressive and loutish behaviour? What are the Government going to do about that?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason why the measures that we announced in the Queen's Speech tackle not merely juvenile offending and other criminal offences, but disruptive, noisy or anti-social neighbours. All hon. Members who have talked to their constituents will know of the misery caused by small groups of people who act in an anti-social way. This Government, at long last, is going to do something about it.

Mr. Curry: Do the Government intend to limit the amount of time that British fishermen can spend at sea to meet cuts in European quotas, as suggested by the Fisheries Minister? [343]

The Prime Minister: Against a background of negotiations that were not well handled by the previous Administration, we are trying to secure the best deal for our fishermen on quota hopping and on other issues so that we can put in place a long-term framework to guarantee their future and offer some stability.

Mr. Insley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an estimated 120 million anti-personnel land mines are

planted around the world? Every 20 minutes, those land mines kill or maim someone, often harming young, innocent children. When does my right hon. Friend expect to fulfil Labour's commitment to ban those evil weapons for good? [344]

The Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government will announce later today that we will ban the import, export, transfer and manufacture of anti-personnel mines. We shall also phase out the United Kingdom stocks of anti-personnel land mines and ban the trade through the United Kingdom of all such land mines. They have caused enormous carnage, often to wholly innocent civilians, including children. The sooner that Britain gives a lead in this the better. It is the right and civilised thing to do.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the Prime Minister undertake a review of the somewhat curious arrangements for science policy that he has inherited?

Hon. Members: Reading.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider two points in particular: first, whether it is right to have the Government's chief scientific adviser located, not in the centre of government, but in one of the Departments that he is responsible for supervising, and secondly, whether it is sensible to have two separate Ministers responsible for research councils and for universities when research council funding is integral to the funding of universities?

The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for giving me notice of it. I pay tribute to his work in education and science when he was a Minister in the previous Administration. The review that is being conducted by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), will examine both the points that he raised. I give no undertakings at all as to the outcome of that review, but it will certainly examine those issues.

Mr. Winnick: So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the framework document remains on the table as that will provide a fair settlement for both communities in Northern Ireland, as well as for cross-border bodies? Does he agree that there is a particular responsibility on the part of the IRA to end its murderous terrorist campaign which has caused only pain, suffering and numerous deaths in the past 25 years? Is it not obvious that no amount of terrorist activity will in any way change the position in Northern Ireland? [345]

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the activities of the IRA. Of course, all the documents that were negotiated by the previous Government remain on the table. As my hon. Friend knows, my officials are talking to Sinn Fein, but I should make it clear that there is no question of Sinn Fein participating in any talks whatever unless there is a clear,


credible and unequivocal ceasefire. That should be demonstrated in word and deed. Sinn Fein and everybody else should be under no illusions whatever about that.

Mr. Trimble: I endorse what the Prime Minister has just said about the terms of entry into talks for Sinn Fein.
I am sure that he will ensure that that will be borne home to Sinn Fein in any discussions with officials and that he will ensure that discussion does not move into negotiation as that would not be permissible. I am sure that the Prime Minister is bearing in mind the fact that an election is taking place in Northern Ireland today. In the light of that and in the light of the comments by the Irish Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he has commended, that a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for murder, does he think that it was wise for officials in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office to arrange for events to take place today that would only boost the standing of Sinn Fein?

The Prime Minister: If I understand rightly, the events to which the hon. Gentleman is referring involve the transfer of prisoners. I shall return to that in a moment. In respect of the talks with Sinn Fein, there is no question of their being about a negotiation of a ceasefire. They are to make clear the Government's terms and conditions for Sinn Fein's entry into any such talks. Secondly, in relation to the two prisoners who have been transferred, I have made inquiries and it is clear that the arrangements were put in train before the general election. It follows the transfer in the past year of nine prisoners who were convicted of terrorist offences. It should not be seen in any way as a signal to Sinn Fein.

Pensioner Poverty

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to alleviate poverty among existing pensioners. [346]

The Prime Minister: We are doing everything that we possibly can to alleviate poverty among Britain's pensioners. Many hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of Britain's pensioners enjoy a good standard of living; there are many more who do not. That is one reason why we are looking urgently at the help that can be given to Britain's poorest pensioners, and, of course, it is one reason why we are committed to the cut in VAT on fuel.

Mr. Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for pensioner poverty is the complexity and sometimes arbitrary nature of the income support cut-off points? Will he find time—unlike the previous Government, who refused—to look at the work done by Lancashire county council's welfare rights service, which has managed to find ingenious means of getting 15 per cent. more pensioners to claim income support—about 7,000 individuals, totalling about £4 million going into pensioners' pockets in Lancashire? Will he use his immense influence to ensure that the Government's programme for ending pensioner poverty begins with getting pensioners the rights and benefits to which they are entitled?

The Prime Minister: I am very happy to congratulate the work of those who are bringing home to pensioners

the entitlements that they have. I should say two other things to my hon. Friend. The review of pensions that is being undertaken by the Department of Social Security will include how we help those pensioners in greatest poverty. In addition, I hope that he can say to his constituents, as I would say to the country, that previous Labour Governments have done well by Britain's pensioners—always—and we will do well by them again. [Interruption.] We have done very well, as indeed they know. Although, no doubt, there will be different ways of doing well for a different age, we shall continue to do our best by Britain's pensioners.

Engagements

Mr. Wallace: If, as the Prime Minister indicated some moments ago, a lifting of the beef export ban is not exactly imminent, is he able to indicate what kind of approximate time scale our beef producers might reasonably expect? In the meantime, what steps are his Government taking to restrict imports into the United Kingdom of beef products that do not meet the same very high standards required of our domestic producers? [347]

The Prime Minister: We obviously want to do everything that we possibly can to encourage and bring about the lifting of the beef ban. I say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that I do not think that plucking out arbitrary timetables has a very good history in the matter. We remember what happened before. [Laughter.] I am sorry to bring back bad memories. I believe that we can make progress and I am hopeful that progress is being made. The very fact that we have a Government who are arguing the case sensibly and constructively gives us a far better chance than we had under the previous Administration.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the indignation and outrage felt among bus passengers in north-east Lancashire, who have been left high and dry by Stagecoach? Even as I speak, bus fares are going up, services are being cut, drivers are leaving in droves and the situation is in crisis. Is not such a situation, where private monopolies have driven out public interest, a shaming indictment of the previous Government's policies? [348]

The Prime Minister: In the interests of non-confrontational exchanges across the Floor, we will leave it to others to judge whether the situation is a shaming indictment. The one thing that is quite clear is that there are severe problems with the regulatory system at the moment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is, in addition to his rain-making duties, undertaking a review of bus regulation. We are well aware of the need to ensure, particularly for people in rural communities, that they get the bus services that they need.

Mr. Gray: Will the Prime Minister find time to visit employers in my constituency of North Wiltshire who tell me that they will lay off workers the morning after he brings in the minimum wage? Does he agree that the tragically high level of youth unemployment on the continent of Europe is not least because of the job-destroying minimum wage in Europe? [349]

The Prime Minister: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the United States has a minimum wage and a lower


unemployment rate than we do. In contradistinction to the position here, that is now a matter for agreement between the republicans and democrats. It is a pity that we cannot obtain the same agreement about decency. Employers will be fully consulted about the level at which the minimum wage is set and how it is implemented. That is very important. I do not believe that the Conservative way of competing on the basis of low wages and low skills is the right future for Britain. We will compete in the future by investing in our people and by employers recognising that if they treat people fairly, they will get the best out of them. If that is one change that an incoming Labour Government can make, we will have done a service to the whole country.

Mrs. Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in this first session of Prime Minister's questions we have already got through more questions than we used to in two quarter-hour sessions? It has been a more civilised

and informative event than ever before and I look forward to more in the future. On the question of the national minimum wage, many of us take great pride in the fact that the Labour party has stuck to that policy through thick and thin and intends to implement it as early as possible.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and I hope that people will understand that this is a better way to organise Prime Minister's questions. The Select Committee on Procedure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is establishing will look at ways that it can be improved in the light of experience.
On the minimum wage, I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier, but some 800,000 people in this country are paid £2.50 an hour or less. There are reasons of efficiency for introducing some basic minimum threshold for pay, but there are also reasons of decency and fairness, and we shall do it.

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Brooke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Will hon. Members please leave quickly and quietly? We have business to do.

Mr. Brooke: Have you had any requests for a statement on the saving of Bart's—if it is true, I welcome it—which has so far emerged in briefings to Back Benchers, among whom, I cheerfully remark, the local Member of Parliament has not been included? That seems as unsatisfactory a method of instructing Parliament on the issue as the original written answer about the closure. Until we have the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers, we cannot break out the champagne.

Madam Speaker: I am not aware of any statement or comment on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. His point of order gives me an opportunity, for which I am grateful, early in the life of the Government to remind those on the Treasury Bench that any statement on a change of policy should be made first to the House, not outside and not to Back Benchers. The House needs to know first of any change of policy and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench take my words to heart and inform any Ministers concerned.

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of advancing the Chamber into the civilised world, may I suggest that you think seriously about changing the rules so that hon. Members can read questions if they wish? When hon. Members were asked to speak without reading pieces of paper, it may have been a way to demonstrate their public school upbringing, but they now have the ability to read and should be allowed to read questions without being barracked by other hon. Members in the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes our procedures to be changed, the Select Committee on Procedure will soon be established and he can refer the matter to it.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that at 8 o'clock this morning Liberal Democrat Members attempted to put in more prayer cards than there were hon. Members from that party present? I am sure that you will wish to deprecate that. Will you make it clear to Liberal Democrats, and to any other hon. Members in the Chamber who do not know, that prayer cards can be put in only by the hon. Member involved and not by anyone else?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House, especially new Members, that prayer cards can be put in only by the Member concerned. Members must be present in person to do so. I certainly deprecate the use of other Members to put prayer cards in place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Just a minute. I have more points of order here.

Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago, you made a welcome statement about the rights of Back Benchers and the need for policy announcements to be made in the House. May I ask you to go further? Yesterday, an important announcement about policy change in relation to the Bank of England and the City of London was made, but no briefing papers about the statement were available in the Vote Office. Should not that be put right?

Madam Speaker: Briefing papers and documentation in the Vote Office have always been a question for the Minister concerned, not for the Speaker. I am concerned to ensure that when statements are made, they are made in the House, and not outside—but, as I said, documentation is the responsibility of the Minister concerned.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two minutes ago you will have heard the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) make a derogatory remark about people with a public school education. Do you not agree that it is a usual courtesy of the House to give notice of such remarks? The hon. Gentleman might have advised the Prime Minister before he made that point.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) would have had writer's cramp this morning if he had tried to write to all hon. Members with a public school education, so we need not worry about that question.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before I came into the Chamber for the debate, or rather, for Question Time, ready for the debate on the referendums, I asked the Vote Office for the papers from the Government about what would actually be set up by the referendums—that is, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I was told that there was none. Was that an oversight by the Vote Office, or have the Government really not given us any information about what we are to discuss in relation to the referendums?

Madam Speaker: All that we have to deal with today is the usual question of the Bill before us. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has had it for some time, has thoroughly digested it and is ready to speak on it when I call him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Just a moment. This is getting to be like a jack-in-the-box, with everyone bobbing up and down. Who is next?

Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. We do not take further points of order. I have dealt with that matter, and we shall now deal with the Bill. There are no further points of order once the Speaker has responded.

Orders of the Day — Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
For the convenience of the House, I should make it clear that although I shall try to deal with the Bill as a whole in explanatory terms, I shall of course lay particular emphasis on the Scottish aspects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will deal with the debate tomorrow, and he, perhaps, will be able to fill in more completely than I shall have time to do, the arguments concerning the Principality.
The measure is a deceptively simple one.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was a little difficult to hear you as Members were leaving the Chamber, but did I understand you to say that you had selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? If so, did you consider the possibility of calling the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, or that tabled by other parties that are represented in Scotland—

Mr. Richard Livsey: And in Wales.

Mr. Maclennan: —and Wales—bearing in mind the fact that the official Opposition have no direct representation in Scotland?

Mr. Livsey: Or in Wales.

Mr. Maclennan: This is an unusual situation, but unusual situations merit unusual responses by the House.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you agree that the Bill is not a "Scotland" Bill but a United Kingdom measure, so the United Kingdom Parliament should decide on it?

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, no. We cannot go on with points of order. I can deal perfectly well with the point. Many Members wish to speak in the debate, and I want to call them, so let me answer the original point of order.
Yes, of course, I looked seriously at the reasoned amendments on the Order Paper. I consulted for a long time this morning and gave the matter a great deal of thought, and I came to the conclusion that I have announced to the House. I want the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the rest of the House to understand that I took a great

deal of time and trouble to consider those reasoned amendments, to take advice and to listen to it. But of course, finally, I have to make the decision, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the ruling that you have just made be a precedent for future debates on Scottish and Welsh measures?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is asking a hypothetical question. I deal only with matters of the moment, and I will deal with that issue when I need to.

Mr. Dewar: This is an important Bill. On the face of it, it is neither long nor complex, but it is a first and decisive step towards delivering a Parliament for the people of Scotland. Therefore, it is a measure of great importance. That is marked by the fact that it is the first Bill to be given a Second Reading by the new Government.
The Bill will pave the way for that Parliament, and its passage is an essential preparation for it. The whole constitutional package that is to be presented to the House is important. Few of us would dispute that there is widespread cynicism about the political processes and, arguably, democracy itself is in some disrepute. Most Members of Parliament—however much we might disagree about the solution—would accept that this is a very real problem. It is this problem that we are, in part, trying to address with our constitutional measures.
What we are looking for is openness and accessibility in government, as well as modern, democratic and responsive government. The Parliament that we envisage in Scotland—working within the framework of the United Kingdom and strengthened by that—will put under democratic control the substantial and extensive powers at present exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We want to make those accessible and more immediately responsive to the public will in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State has referred to making government more open and accessible and to the "whole constitutional package". Would not it have been better to have held the Bill back until we could see the detail of the Government's constitutional proposals?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Dewar: I am getting some advice from my Back-Bench colleagues, which I gladly accept.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) will not be surprised to hear that that is not my opinion. The Bill will allow a test of public opinion and is a matter of establishing consent. It is not a Second Reading aperitif for devolution in Scotland or Wales. There is, I would argue, a strong case for having a test of public opinion, but whether we should or should not is the question before us. If the Bill reaches the statute book and we move to the referendum, there will be a White Paper that will clearly set out the scheme and which will inform the public of the details—although I have to say that, in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the country, these issues are well understood. In any event, the White Paper


will set out the scheme in some detail, and it is on that basis that the arguments will rage. It may be that I shall come across the hon. Member for Sevenoaks in my travels, which will be a pleasure. It is then that the arguments on devolution itself will take place.

Mr. Eric Forth: When will the people of England be consulted on what they think about all this?

Mr. Dewar: That is a rather brave point, but I have to accept that the right hon. Gentleman is sometimes brave to the point of perversity. He is brave in making that point, given the recent election results in this country. In any event, there is a clear precedent from 1979. This is a mechanism for testing opinion, which deals with the challenge repeatedly made by the Conservative party in Scotland and in other parts of the country—that there is no consent in Scotland. I shall return to that matter in a moment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I will not give way, as I have a lot of substantive points to make.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have a substantial case to make and I feel that if I give way over-indulgently—even to such an attractive option as a question from the hon. Gentleman—we might never make progress at all.
I hope that the House will forgive me for making one personal point. In campaigning on devolution, I am one of those who can look back over many years—indeed, back to the 1950s. I was campaigning then, I have been campaigning ever since and I remain committed to that cause.
When I came back to the House in 1978, after a sad misunderstanding with the electorate that kept me out for eight years, I found John Smith, one of my foundation friends, bearing the weight of the battle. As I look around me, it is odd to see that some things have not changed—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for example, is still with characteristic persistence holding to his lonely course. Indeed, I suspect that there are some things that will never change.
I remember those days between 1976 and 1978 and the remarkable achievement of John and his colleagues in getting the Bill on to the statute book at a time when the Government were failing and there were enormous and complex political problems. Perhaps because of John Smith and because of the special nature of that argument, the term "unfinished business" has a special meaning and significance in Scottish politics.
As we start on what I hope will be the final stage of this great saga, I am very much aware of my responsibilities, of the work and the challenges that lie ahead and also of the optimism and expectation that certainly rest in Scotland and, I believe, in Wales, on the passage and progress of this legislation. There is a genuine mood for change and I hope that the House will be prepared to rise to it.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): The Secretary of State referred to the work done by the late John Smith.

Will he recall and confirm that when that measure was taken through the House, the Bill was first and the referendum second? Is not that a precedent that he should follow now?

Mr. Dewar: I know that this is often said to postpone, but I shall be dealing with the order of events in a few minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman waits, he will receive an explanation that has some relevance to his experience and that, I hope, will appeal to him.
It is a mark of the changed times and of this Government's determination that I expect that we shall be able to publish the White Paper within a total time scale of around three months. I remember that the comparable time in the 1970s was almost three years. That difference reflects the changes in the opinions in my party—it certainly reflects changes in the popular mood in Scotland and in Wales and, I think, in the country as a whole, which I welcome.
As one sometimes loses the neatness of the scheme when one takes up interventions, let me remind the House of the order of events as we intend them. We start today with the Second Reading of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. The remaining stages will take place the week after the Whit recess. As those who have read the Bill will realise, there is provision for secondary legislation, and the necessary orders will be published in draft in the same week as the remaining stages are taken.
As I explained, the White Paper will be ready well ahead of the referendum—before the House rises—allowing for a full statement in the House and discussion at that stage. The referendum will come in the autumn—certainly, before the major party conferences. The substantive legislation—that will be when we lock horns on the merits of the devolution package itself—will come before the end of the year. If that legislation has a successful passage, elections to the new Parliament will be held as soon as is practical after Royal Assent. We could have a Parliament in place in Scotland and Wales to welcome the new millennium, and that will be extremely popular and right.
I say unashamedly that this is a massive undertaking—moving from the aspirations of opposition to a defined scheme that is workable and efficient and is accepted and endorsed by Parliament and the people. I believe that we can hold to the timetable that I have outlined.

Mr. William Cash: May I put the United Kingdom question to the right hon. Gentleman? On the dismembering of the United Kingdom under the projected proposals in the Bill, does he agree that it is essential that the people of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, should have the right to give their verdict on the questions posed in the Bill?

Mr. Dewar: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents would thank him for landing them with that responsibility.

Mr. Cash: Oh, yes they would.

Mr. Dewar: I wonder; but I will not get into an "Oh, yes they would", "Oh, no they wouldn't" exchange with the hon. Gentleman, because if there is one thing about


him that I admire, it is his staying power, and he might well best me in such a debate. I shall therefore return to the logic of the argument.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall take one more intervention, and then move on for a considerable period.

Mr. Ian Bence: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting my reason for intervening. I take a great deal of interest in Welsh and Scottish affairs, and was born in Wales, as he will know. My difficulty, as I represent an English constituency, is in knowing whether I should support the Bill—which I might well do, because it provides for a test of opinion in Scotland—without knowing, as I cannot until he issues the papers, what powers the Scottish Parliament is to have and whether it will affect my English constituents, who will have to pay for it.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman belittles himself. I admire modesty, but on this occasion I detect a touch of false modesty. If he is saying that he does not understand the outline of the scheme and is unable to reach his own conclusion, that tells us something about his powers of decision rather than about the difficulties experienced by most people.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall take one more intervention, as it comes from the Welsh nationalists.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State. In an effort to be constructive, I want to mention one thing: he said earlier that the White Paper would be produced within three months, before we broke up for the summer. May I impress upon him the need for the White Paper to be available to the House before we break up for the summer, so that the matter can be fully debated by the Welsh Grand Committee—and no doubt the Scottish Grand Committee—as well as the whole House?

Mr. Dewar: It is certainly my intention that both the Welsh and the Scottish White Papers should be available before the House rises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be glad to have a word with the hon. Gentleman about that. There is nothing between us on that matter, at least, regardless of what may transpire in the future.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry, but I shall get into trouble with the House if I take endless interventions. I might refer later to a group in which the hon. Gentleman is involved.

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman: he is beguiling.

Mr. Shepherd: I bless the right hon. Gentleman. I merely wanted clarification that the subsequent stages of the Bill, as a major constitutional measure, will be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dewar: That will certainly be the case. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am not an enemy of proper

scrutiny and discussion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, will accept that. We shall see how we progress, but I certainly hope that we shall have a proper look at all the arguments in some detail.
I have made the point, and I spell it out again, that the Second Reading is on the Bill, not on devolution as such. The Bill makes no judgment on the issues and arguments surrounding devolution, but allows the final decision about endorsement to lie with the people.
I remind the House that referendums are not unprecedented: we had them in 1975 and 1979, on matters of fundamental constitutional change in both cases. We believe that there is a case, on such occasions and issues, for an inclusive process, gathering support across party political boundaries. What we seek—whether we get it is a matter for the people—is a broadly based consensus for change.
I want to deal briefly with the simple and basic question: why a referendum? I have already hinted at the answer that I shall give. Throughout the past year or two, we have consistently been challenged on the wisdom of introducing a Bill, on the basis that there was no consent for it.
The argument, which I understand, is that people vote at general elections for many reasons. It has often been put to me that the nice man who lives down on the corner may have voted Liberal Democrat for many reasons. Was it because he specifically endorsed proportional representation; because he wanted an enormously forward position on Europe; because he was an enthusiast for Scottish devolution; or, for example, because he simply could not stand the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats were an easy way of getting out of that dilemma? Many of my Tory friends, and I am not one to dispute it with them, found the last explanation the most plausible.
In those circumstances, I have a scintilla of sympathy with the argument that consent is open to challenge. Rather honourably, we decided to face up to that challenge—not shrug it off—and put it to the test in a referendum. That is what we are inviting the House to authorise. I shall come to pre-referendum and post-referendum tests later, but the House should have some sympathy with the general argument.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I let the hon. Gentleman in on Friday. I do not want to make a habit of doing it every time that I speak, because I fear that if I am generous now, he will take it as a precedent. I should be obliged if he waited.
There is advantage in popular consent. In our unwritten constitution, popular consent gives a certain legitimacy. In a sense, it is the way to build the devolution scheme into the system and to give it roots. That, for me, is attractive. It also gives the Opposition, and those who dissent from my point of view, the opportunity to defeat it and, in effect, to kill it. That seems right. If we get the


right result, we have moral authority to speed the passage of devolution. That is again a matter for the people and we shall have to see what the results ultimately bring.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Andrew Rowe: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. May I suggest that he should take the advice of the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) about why there is to be a referendum before a Bill on Scottish devolution is put before the House? It has nothing to do with the airy-fairy arguments that the right hon. Gentleman advances; it has to do with the fact that the opposition to the principle of devolution was so effectively conducted by Michael Forsyth, the former Member for Stirling. Seeking powers to raise an extra tax in Scotland became such an embarrassment to the Labour party that the Prime Minister imposed the referendum policy on the Scottish Labour party.

Mr. Dewar: We all make mistakes. I thought that I was letting in the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who is sitting beside the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). That was unfortunate. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was trying to whitewash his part as a very minor sprocket in the departing Scottish Office team. I assure him that I very often take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), and hope to do so many times in future.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I must make some progress. I should like to deal with some of the amendments. I have listened with interest to what has been said by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is a very old friend. I was a little surprised that he was anxious for us to give the light of day to the Liberal Democrat amendment. I should have thought that it was more a case of private grief breaking into public view, although I might be prejudiced. The Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment is interesting because it welcomes
appropriate referendum proposals for Wales,
but mysteriously discovers that a referendum in Scotland is unnecessary. It seems that the Liberal Democrats have managed to square a circle, on which I congratulate them. It is a curiosity, a collector's piece. In any event, it will not be debated now.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is less certainty about the outcome of a referendum in Wales than of one in Scotland, even on the most optimistic assumptions that the Government no doubt make. In this disunited kingdom, it is reasonable to have arguments to address both cases separately.

Mr. Dewar: It is not satisfactory to hold elections only when one thinks that one might lose them. It is an interesting democratic principle. It has some appeal.

It may be irrelevant to the debate, but I have dreamt about a re-run of the 1997 general election for the past three nights. I found it very refreshing.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I look to the Chair for protection.
The Tory amendment deals specifically with the question of the pre-legislative referendum, and I understand that. I have explained that we see the purpose of the referendum to establish consent in principle and to move on to the next stage, we hope with renewed impetus and some authority. The Tory party has concentrated on that issue. In a sense, it is an interesting matter of constitutional practice whether the engine pushes or pulls the train. One could hold many learned colloquies on that point, and I have no doubt about the mental ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
I stress again that the aim is to establish consent before plunging the Government machine, the civil service, the House of Commons and the House of Lords into the complexities of this journey. Parliament still has a job to do against the background of the advice offered by the people in the referendum if the scheme goes ahead. It clears the way and allows Parliament to do its job of scrutiny knowing the true basis of the support. I hope that that support will go beyond narrow party boundaries. I feel strongly that constitutional change is not the partisan property of any single party. As I tried to explain, rather unsuccessfully, to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), events in Scotland are reinforcing that message. A vote with a clear-cut decision in the referendum will provide stability and a background against which Parliament can do its job.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Dewar: It is not without precedent. I make the point to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) should not keep trying to intervene when the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is unlikely to give way.

Hon. Members: He is a new boy.

Mr. Dewar: I am not sure that he is. He looks horribly familiar to me.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State for allowing me to participate. As the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on the public consent aspect of the referendum—I do not argue with the need for that—will he address the House on


clauses 1(3) and 2(3), which will allow Greeks, Finns, French, Danes and other European Union residents of Scotland to vote in the referendum?

Mrs. Ewing: Why not?

Mr. Garnier: Why not, possibly, but it will not allow my constituents who are members of the EU and United Kingdom residents to vote in that important referendum.

Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that in a moment, but I want to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the concept of residency, which has some relevance in the matter.
The pre-legislation referendum is not without precedent. The right hon. Member for Devizes will remember the Northern Ireland framework document, which is a recent example. There was the triple-lock mechanism under which there was to be political discussion and, it was hoped, broad agreement. That was to be followed by a referendum and then by legislation. I do not want to dwell on that, but it is an example and there are circumstances in which that has occurred.
Let me put it this way. The rule appears to be that when it suits, not perhaps even the Government but a wider part of the House, a pre-legislation referendum is not so unacceptable, unthinkable and offensive. I should have thought that the argument about consent that has been raging would echo around, if not the constituency of Devizes, at least the ancestral acres of the right hon. Member for Devizes, so that he would be aware of the need to settle the issue of consent. I shall leave it for the right hon. Gentleman to think about. No doubt we can debate it again on another occasion.

Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way, because I am conscious of the abuse of the House.
There is nothing surprising in the Tory amendment. What is surprising is what is not in it. I understood from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks that an issue on which the Conservatives were particularly het up, to use a Scottish colloquialism, was the need for thresholds, and that does not appear in the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was
a powerful case for a threshold".
There was then perhaps a touch of the faint heart or a wish to distance himself, because he went on merely to say that the Opposition would table
a number of amendments to the Bill, and some will deal with the question of possible thresholds."—[Official Report, 16 May 1997: Vol. 294, c. 286, 291.]
It may be—I understand this—that he did not want to be too closely associated with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who had started that particular hare running. Perhaps he was thinking about the dangers of guilt by association.
In any event, I understand that there is considerable interest among Conservative Members in thresholds. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks might be even

more worried if he reads the second Conservative reasoned amendment. It comes from what the Leader of the Opposition once slightly unhappily called the bastard tendency, which takes the view that there should be a fancy franchise and artificial obstacles in the way of the democratic process. That view was rather strongly endorsed by the right hon. Member for Devizes when he replied to the constitutional debate last Friday.
I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe intends to say a word or two about the other Conservative amendment. I presume that, if amendments are to be tabled in about a week, he has a clear mind on what they are likely to contain. It would be extremely helpful for the House if it had some sight of the amendments on thresholds with which we are to be presented so that we can, with fair and equitable minds, assess them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think it amiss if I tell him that I have a prejudice against such amendments and that I take the view that a test of public opinion is conducted on the basis of simple majority in this country. If he or his party tried to revisit the 40 per cent. rule, it would be seen in the most basic terms, certainly in Scotland and Wales, as something akin to ballot rigging, and would be treated with contempt.
At a time when the Scottish Conservative party is clearly considering a shift in position or at least a move towards individual conscience rather than a collective view on devolution, it would be unfortunate if there were shabby manoeuvring or what would clearly be seen as such in order to fix the result. If that is in contemplation, it is important that the Opposition reveal their hand in good time. I do not advise the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe to go down that road, or to travel north with that glad news. He might find himself as unpopular there as he has been in certain other quarters rather spectacularly in recent days.
In fairness, I shall not say more about that, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to look at the views that have been expressed by a range of office bearers in the Scottish Conservative party and by a majority of party chairmen who could be contacted by the newspapers, he will see—I put it modestly—that there is a wish to rethink and certainly to be seen to play fair in the Scottish Conservative party on this issue. I greatly welcome that. The perhaps spiteful side of Westminster politics should not get in the way of that process. That would be bad for democracy, bad, funnily enough, for the Conservative party—although that is not my first priority—and bad for the process of constitutional reform. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take that on board.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: If in the referendum the Scottish people vote yes to the first question and no to the second, will the Government have any objection to my constituents in Kent refusing to contribute to the costs of the Scottish Parliament? They will have no opportunity to vote on its creation and no representation within it. I thought that taxation without representation was something of which we did not approve.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not know that his constituents intended or expected to pay for the Scottish Parliament. However, if he intends to make that offer, I shall certainly be prepared to have a


look at it. Indeed, it might make for some unexpected good will between us. He should perhaps take that suggestion back and have a look at his generosity.

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): In the light of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), will the right hon. Gentleman make the position clear? Is the implication of his answer that the costs of the Scottish Parliament and proposed Welsh Assembly are to be met out of the Scottish and Welsh blocks and, therefore, out of the budget for public services in Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Dewar: I have a special passage on that in my speech, which I know the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be looking forward to if he stays the course. He might reason with his hon. Friends to let me make some progress and then that passage will come all the quicker.
It is clear from the outset that what we are looking for is to settle the question of consent for the specific scheme. The scheme has been set out in the White Paper and it can be judged and endorsed if it is thought right by the people. It follows from that, and it is an important point that I know is dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and some others, that we are not running an opinion poll or what is sometimes rather vulgarly called a beauty contest. We are looking for a particular endorsement of a practical scheme. It is not a matter of running the gamut of every possibility and then considering what to do at the end of the process.
I have a clear view on the matter. I have watched the debate rage for close on 20 years. We have made surprisingly little progress in practical terms, and I want to see practical progress. It is because I want to see such progress that I want to concentrate upon that aim and that objective. That leads me to the conclusion that we should be concentrating on the scheme that is on the stocks and which is on offer. If we get the endorsement of that scheme specifically, we should be in the House pressing ahead from that.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a moment, but I have one other related point to make.
Even though the hon. Gentleman and I may have differences of interpretation, I hope that he will accept that I should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people or to deny them the right to opt for any solution to the constitutional question which they wished. For example, if they want to go for independence, I see no reason why they should not do so. In fact, if they want to, they should. I should be the first to accept that.
It is on that basis that I had no difficulty—perhaps this is a Scottish point—in signing the Claim of Right, but that does not imply that the people had to exercise their right by travelling on one particular road. That does not imply that if they failed to pick the road with the exit sign from the United Kingdom, they were betraying their trust. That is not my view. I believe that people have a right to choice, but that they have the right to every choice. I believe that the choice that they have made is the choice that we have put before them—there is evidence to support that claim. I hope that the referendum will settle that point.
I accept that if the nationalists want to progress their cause—I do not expect them to pack their bags and go home—their route to putting independence back on the agenda is to carry the people with them. With six seats and a long record of failure in that respect, however, they have much to do and a long way to come.

Mr. Salmond: There is nothing between the right hon. Gentleman and myself about the matter of choice. I fully accept that argument. If the scheme is on the stocks, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, we can look for an early publication of the White Paper. If he is arguing that the general election did not decide the constitutional question, why will he not offer the choice between the well-supported constitutional options of independence, devolution and the status quo? Does he recall on 23 April 1992 telling The Scotsman that the case for a multi-option referendum should be shouted from the rooftops? Why was it to be shouted from the rooftops in 1992, but not to be countenanced in 1997?

Mr. Dewar: I am always slightly depressed when people have good cuttings files. If the hon. Gentleman would like to look back at the context in which I made that remark in 1992, he will appreciate that it was after an overwhelming vote for change in Scotland and the refusal of the then Government to take any action of any type. It was in that specific context that that campaign was launched. We are now in government with a policy that was contained in our manifesto. We are honestly going to put it to the people. If we are wrong and they reject it, that is their option. I am not going to be distracted, however, or put off from making progress as I think right on this occasion.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have been speaking for more than half an hour, and in fairness to the House, I must get on.
I should like to consider briefly the contents of the Bill. This is the first time that I have done so and I find it a slightly daunting prospect when a speech becomes a list. It is important, however, that there is clarity. Put briefly, clause 1 authorises the holding of a referendum in Scotland and it explains that the date of it will appear in secondary legislation. The clause also defines the questions, sets the franchise, which will be based on the local government elections, provides for the appointment of a chief counting officer for Scotland and counting officers for each local authority area, and sets out their primary duties.
The House will appreciate—and this is an important point—that great care has been taken in framing the propositions. We took advice from people learned in electoral practices. We have tried hard to go for clarity and, above all, fairness. I genuinely believe that we have been scrupulous in trying to avoid any leading questions, and I hope that there is universal agreement that that has been fairly achieved.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: In this part of the Bill, the House is being asked to give away its tax-varying powers in a referendum question. Taxation goes to the heart of the House's powers, so, at the very least, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must


be given practical answers as to whether it is feasible, in a single United Kingdom administrative and fiscal region, to have different tax rates applying to the earnings or investment income of different citizens, according to whether they work or live in various parts of the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to give the House full proposals and details before we agree to handing over those powers by way of a referendum?

Mr. Dewar: The subject will of course be dealt with in the White Paper. I am a little puzzled, because I do not know anything about the right hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances, but I would lay a small bet that he and I pay different rates of tax from those of most of my constituents. Of course we have variations in the sense that we have local tax, national tax, indirect taxes and direct taxes. We have a whole portfolio, a portmanteau, a travelling pantechnicon of taxes under all Governments and I do not accept the impossibility argument to which he refers, but it is an important issue and we shall return to it.
As I say, we have tried to be scrupulous about avoiding leading questions. We are anxious that no one should misunderstand what they are being asked to decide on and that there should be a minimum of spoilt papers. We shall use two ballot papers in Scotland because of the two questions. That is obviously to allow a free vote on each issue and to aid the counting process. I believe that it can be done with great fairness and great clarity, and that is our intention. The detail will be in the White Paper. We shall obviously, as I have stressed time and again, come to it in good time, and well ahead of the referendum.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the new Scottish Parliament is not going to be a danger to the continuance of the United Kingdom, and I believe that he is sincere in that, why cannot we have a third question in the referendum, inviting people to proclaim their belief in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dewar: Because that would imply that those who are going to vote yes in the referendum are the enemies of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman has conceded, he assumes that I am genuine in my view, and my view is that we shall strengthen the United Kingdom by bringing in a more democratic and responsive form of government. It is obviously impossible to present me with a referendum in which I have alternatives but in which I might want to vote yes both times. I am sure that, if he thinks about it, he will understand that point.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall not take further interventions. I am sorry, but I have outstayed my welcome.
I understand that there are doubts about the second question. My friends in the Liberal Democrat party and on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel those doubts particularly strongly, but in my view, the whole question of revenue raising is a discipline and a responsibility, and the right to vary tax is an important part of the scheme. Opponents will view it as an opportunity, of course. The tartan tax—the playing to the pocket—will no doubt be a prominent feature of the campaign, as it was in the

campaign in the run-up to the election. I might be wrong, but I believe that it will be as unsuccessful as it was in the run-up to the election. However, whether it is an opportunity for my opponents or not, we came to the view that it was right that the people should be allowed to decide in Scotland, and we went for the second question.
I think that we shall win that because it will be very difficult for even someone with the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe somehow to persuade Scots that although there are many tiers of government with varying revenue and taxation powers, it is a unique impossibility, an abomination and a danger when similar powers are given to Scots sitting as a body, elected and responsible for wide-ranging legislative powers. That is in effect asking the Scots to give a resounding vote of no confidence to their own probity and responsibility and their ability to conduct business. I do not believe that we shall have that.
As the House, or those who have followed the argument, may remember, the poll in The Scotsman in January this year suggested that there was very substantial approval-59 per cent., in fact—for those powers. That may not be an accurate reflection, or it may change, but it is honourable and right to find out in the only way that matters and is clear. That is what we shall do.
The local authority franchise has been picked because it is the one that is available and which most nearly accords with the residency test, which we believe is the proper way to decide someone's eligibility to vote. It has some odd consequences, some of which I welcome. For example, it ensures that peers in Scotland will be able to vote. Rather to my surprise, perhaps because Scotland is a sort of second home for that group, there are only 123 of them, I am told, but still, let us value those 123 votes. They may be glad to know that it will not be possible to identify them and discover exactly how they voted in the referendum.
Some European nationals will also be included, a matter that has been raised. That is defensible on the simple ground that they are European nationals who have established the right of residence in Scotland. It will also have the effect—

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry. We can come back to this matter on many other occasions.
Picking the local authority franchise also has the effect of excluding overseas voters. If we had gone for the parliamentary franchise, which is marginally smaller, we would have had to include overseas voters, which would have meant that the fine old peppery gentleman who has spent 17 years in Kuala Lumpur but who takes a great interest in what is happening in the old country would have had a vote. [Interruption.] I am not aware of his domicile.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear to me and to the hon. Gentleman that he is not giving way at the moment. This is an important matter that we need to know about.

Mr. Dewar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I said that I would not take any more interventions, but I am


happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman personally afterwards, to try to deal with whatever is troubling him at this stage.
The chief counting officer will be for the whole of Scotland and there will of course be one officer for each local government area. That is the precedent of 1979. The result that matters is the national result, but the local government results—area by area—will also be available. The final aggregate will tell the story that matters. The Bill is the way to ensure that that happens.
As an addendum, I hope—I cannot be definitive about this—that, unlike 1979, we shall have the final result on the night, rather than having to wait until the next day. That is certainly my intention if it is at all practicably possible. I just wanted to record that.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry, but I have made a decision. I shall of course talk to the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
Clause 2 makes similar provisions for Wales, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will know. Clause 3 includes the necessary secondary legislation governing the conduct of the referendum. An Order in Council, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses, will be laid, and the draft will be made available the week after the Whit recess. We are happy to consider comments on the draft received by the middle of June, which can be taken into account before final orders are laid.
Clause 4 excludes the possibility of legal proceedings to question a referendum result certified by counting officers. That follows the precedent set in all the other legislation dealing with referendums. I am assured that only the most devious of minds would see conspiracy behind a safeguard against protracted and unnecessary potential litigation.
Clause 5 will provide for the payment of charges and expenses of returning officers and chief counting officers. It also allows expenditure for preparatory work. We believe that it is a prudent measure to maintain momentum, so that a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly can meet quickly after the first elections. It also deals with matters such as the acquisition, refurbishment and design of buildings, with planning needs and with other romantic matters of that type. Its provisions will be used only if there is a positive outcome to the referendums, and, for significant expenditure, only after the successful Second Reading of a devolution Bill.
I know that we shall be hearing a great deal about the provisions of clause 5—the tone has already been set by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, on 16 May. On that evidence, the Opposition seem to be rather over-staffed with hon. Members of vision and wide horizons, who are sadly fixated by the comparatively minor expenditure specified in the explanatory and financial memorandum. It is a type of parliamentary pump approach—which blows up to fill the foreground of what should be a great constitutional debate on comparatively limited matters.
As the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks will know, the costs specified in the explanatory and financial memorandum are relatively modest and are dwarfed by the potential benefits. In Scotland, the cost of the referendum will be less than £1 per head. Moreover,

the transitional—or paving—costs, which we do not believe will be as high as the specified upper limit, will be under £5 per head. That is in the context of a budget of £14 billion.

Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Dewar: I will finish now.

Mr. Hague: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way.

Mr. Hague: In the interests of clarity, is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the costs of the referendums will be drawn from the Scottish and Welsh blocks?

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman will see in the Bill that the funds will come from the Consolidated Fund. Perhaps we can take the matter from that point. I should tell him, because I think that it is important, that the referendum costs will be less than one thirtieth of 1 per cent. of the Scottish Office's annual budget. He should look at the £18 million to £25 million, which is the cost band for provision of paving expenditure, and compare it—to give only one example—with the £30 million or so that was lost, in a definitive sense, through the former Government's unwise investment in Health Care International, a private hospital in Clydebank. I appeal to him to raise issues of importance, but to try also to maintain some sense of perspective. If not, he will diminish only himself.
The Bill's schedules simply set out the layout and content of the ballot papers.
I have provided a rough Cook's tour of the Bill. I apologise for the length of my speech—I have perhaps been over-generous in allowing interventions, but there have been persistent attempts to intervene.
I have real hopes for the referendum campaign. In a sense, the Bill is only a mechanism. The reality—the consequences that will flow from it—should be an all-Scotland debate on issues of real importance. A similar debate should occur in Wales. I hope that the debate will have real public involvement and that there will be a sense of excitement. It will be a test not only of whether a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales would bring better government, but of the type of Parliament and Assembly and of the range of powers that they should have.
The Bill should be a part of the process of rebuilding confidence and it will, I hope, return some faith to our democratic agenda. It is about whether people should be trusted with decisions about their own future, and I hope that the House will endorse it.

Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill because it would ask voters to give blanket approval to proposals in advance of legislation being published, debated, amended or agreed; and believes that such referendums should only be held after full and detailed scrutiny of the legislation in question on the floor of the House of Commons.


I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales on their appointments, and the Labour party on its electoral success in Scotland and in Wales. If there is a silver lining for Conservative Members—it is certainly not very much of one—it is that there can no longer by any doubting us when we say that we are in favour of the first-past-the-post voting system out of genuine principle. In Wales, we won the second largest number of votes, but we were left without any seats. In Scotland, half a million Tory voters failed to secure parliamentary representation, so no one can accuse us of favouring the current system out of selfish party advantage.
Although Labour has won a famous victory, it does not follow that it has won a secure mandate on the question before the House. The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has pointed out previously and today that Scottish and Welsh voters cast their ballots on 1 May for a multiplicity of reasons other than devolution. I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's favourite reason the most persuasive, but he might not expect me to agree with him on that. Even if devolution had been the sole issue on polling day, no specific models of constitutional change could be said to have won popular endorsement.
Let us take Scotland first. Labour began by saying that, if elected, it would move to create a Scottish Parliament on the model proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The Prime Minister then casually informed the Scottish Labour party that there would be a referendum first. We then learned that there would be two referendums; then that there would need to be only one referendum after all, but with two questions.
By that time, the people of Scotland might justly have felt that they were being taken somewhat for granted. That was not the end of the matter. Any hopes that the launch of Labour's manifesto would clarify the position were short-lived. Having pledged itself to a Parliament with tax-raising powers, Labour then said that it would not use those powers.
Next, we were told that the Scottish Parliament would be like an English parish council. Finally, as if all that were not enough, the Prime Minister announced that sovereignty would rest not with this House and not even with Her Majesty, but in his own person—l'etat c'est Blair! What have the people of Scotland just voted for—a tax-raising assembly, an English parish council or a new sun king?
What are the people of Wales being asked to vote for? Unlike the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly will not have tax-raising powers. It will not have the power to legislate on local government, on health, on education, on housing or on transport. If the Scottish Parliament is like an English parish council, how would the Prime Minister describe the Welsh Assembly? Would he describe it as a meeting of church wardens?
On Friday, the Secretary of State for Scotland described the notion of a Scottish Parliament without tax-raising powers as "an odd non sequitur". In April, the Secretary of State for Wales described the notion of a Welsh Assembly with tax-raising powers as economic illiteracy, so what are we to believe? Are we to believe that the Secretary of State for Wales is a non sequitur, or that the Secretary of State for Scotland is economically illiterate?

Why are the Government determined to foist on the people of Wales a settlement that they regard as second-rate in Scotland?
We support the Government in their stated aim of strengthening the Union, and we share their ambition to give the Scots and the Welsh more say over their own affairs, but the Bill is no way in which to achieve either of those aims. Its objectives, I fear, are somewhat more cynical and more selfish.
In their determination to maximise their majority in this House, the Government are wilfully ignoring the danger that their proposals pose to the long-term unity of the country. The Labour party wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants a devolved Parliament in Scotland, and it wants to keep a disproportionate block of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House to drive through legislation for England and for Wales.
The simplicity of the proposed ballot papers as set out in the Bill masks the fact that all the most important questions have been left unanswered. Is it right, for example, that Scots and Welshmen residing outside their homelands should be disfranchised? Is it right that the rest of the kingdom should be left unconsulted about a profound change to its government? Do the questions on the proposed ballot paper refer to a Parliament and an Assembly within the United Kingdom or outside it? In other words, should supporters of complete separation vote yes or no?
What will be the position of the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries of State? How will they occupy themselves in the Cabinet? Will they make the tea or do some photocopying, or will they just sit sniggering together like middle-aged versions of Beavis and Butthead?
What of the Barnett formula on funding for Scotland if tax-raising powers are granted to the Edinburgh Parliament? What will be the relationship between Members of this House and Members of the devolved Assemblies who sit for the same geographical areas? How can hon. Members representing Scottish and Welsh seats become Ministers for portfolios that fall within the jurisdiction of the devolved legislatures? How would the position of the Minister of Transport, for example, be tenable? Those questions demand answers.
I am delighted that, after an uncharacteristic period of silence—coinciding quite by chance, no doubt, with the run-up to the general election—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has again found his voice. I am sure that he will not mind me reminding the House of the question that he has made famous.
Under Labour's plans, Scottish Members would continue to sit and vote in this House on all English and most Welsh matters, but English and Welsh Members would have no commensurate say over Scottish matters. Why should the Secretary of State for Scotland be able to decide the future of grant-maintained schools in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, when I have no say over schools in Glasgow?
The manifest unfairness of that arrangement has attracted a great deal of comment, but the other half of the question has received less attention: why should Scottish Members continue to legislate for England and Wales when they are to have no say over the affairs of Scotland? Under the Government's proposals, Scottish Members would have less say on Scottish matters than on English matters. If they were petitioned by their constituents about


the state of Scottish schools, they would have to reply, "Nothing to do with me." Their constituents might justly wonder whether their salaries—

Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]—sorry, the former Home Secretary—to talk about the substance of devolution, when we are discussing the mechanics of the referendum proposals?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I do not believe that that is out of order, and he is not the Home Secretary.

Mr. Howard: I understand why Labour Members do not want these questions raised, and why they do not want concentration focused on them, but this is essential background to the question that the House has to debate today and tomorrow.

Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I shall give way in just a moment; I just want to finish the point that I am making.
In the light of the questions that I have just posed, the Scottish constituents of Labour Members—indeed, of all hon. Members—might justly wonder whether their salaries should be cut to reflect the reduced role that they would have.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the point of order that has just been raised is at the nub of the problem? The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) complained that my right hon. and learned Friend was raising those difficult issues, but the Government have asked us not to raise any of those points. We are to ask the people to vote on something that they know nothing about, in the absence of any debate.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. I shall develop that point in a moment or two.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been making something of what used to be called the West Lothian question. Will he address what I call the East Lothian question? How could he justify a situation in which he and his colleagues voted to impose the poll tax on my constituents in East Lothian and on other Scottish constituencies at a time when it did not apply to their constituents?

Mr. Howard: Because that was a decision taken by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which has jurisdiction to legislate for every part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland argued clearly for a constitutional convention. We also argued clearly for a referendum. Is he aware that there was a meeting of the remnants of the Conservative party in a wigwam, where they had a pow-wow, but that all their peace pipes were broken? The Tory party is split. It does

not know whether to support devolution or a referendum. It is time he realised that the problem for the Tories has not gone away. They are so split asunder that they will never rule Scotland.

Mr. Howard: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's colourful language, but his question is somewhat remote from the point that I was addressing.

Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made great play of the so-called West Lothian question. Can he tell the House how often, during the 50 years when Ulster Unionist Members sat on Conservative Benches, took the Conservative Whip and served in Conservative Governments when the Stormont Parliament was in existence, the Conservative party ever complained that those hon. Members were able to vote on matters relating to West Lothian and West Bromwich, but not on those relating to west Belfast?

Mr. Howard: There are at least two answers to that question. As has been acknowledged on several occasions, not least by the Secretary of State for Defence, who was in his place earlier, it is unwise to draw analogies with Northern Ireland, because circumstances there are extremely different. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that, in 1921, when the legislation that made the change to which he has referred was introduced, there was a commensurate reduction in the number of Members from Northern Ireland. It may well be sensible for us to explore that point in due course.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a skilful job of showing that devolution involves a number of complex points of principle, but he seems to have learnt nothing from the election. Was it not a wholly untenable position for his party to hold that we have reached such a point of perfection in our constitution that there should be no change in Scotland, and that there was no such thing as the Scottish question? Was not that the basis of the total rejection of his party in Scotland?

Mr. Howard: No, it was not. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have noticed that, a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State acknowledged that people vote in general elections for a multiplicity of reasons, as they did on 1 May, and that one cannot draw the inference that the hon. Gentleman sought to draw.
Moreover, it has never been the case that we have resisted change. As was pointed out earlier, the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the former right hon. Member for Stirling, was responsible for significant change in the arrangements for governing Scotland, so the hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented both the result of the election and the position of the Conservative party.

Mr. Salmond: Two of the other Conservative leadership contenders have indicated their support for a blocking mechanism, a threshold or a 50 per cent. rule, according to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Does the right hon. and learned


Gentleman support such a blocking device, and, if so, would it apply to any European referendum that might be introduced?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have to restrain himself. In due course, he will see exactly what amendments the Opposition table, on this and other issues. We shall comply in full with the rules of the House, and we shall give due notice to the hon. Gentleman and to the Government when we table those amendments.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I must make a little progress.
I was dealing with the reaction of the people of Scotland and the right hon. and hon. Members who represent them to the proposals that lie behind the question before the House today. As for the people of England and Wales, their reaction is likely to be even stronger.
The Labour party has shown itself ready to promote its party interests, quite regardless of the damage caused to the integrity of the United Kingdom. It seems determined to retain the over-representation of Scottish Members in the House. It does not take much imagination to foresee the mood in England if that majority were used to bulldoze through policies that were unpopular with the English electorate. That is precisely why the cynical proposals outlined by the Secretary of State menace the integrity and harmony of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cash: In the context of what I have just termed the United Kingdom question, and considering the reality of what will happen in the dismembering process, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the question is not entirely for England or for Wales, or indeed for Scotland, but for the United Kingdom as a whole, having regard to the interests of those in Northern Ireland, for example, who will also be affected by the logical consequences to which the Bill will lead?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He, too, will have to wait and see what amendments are tabled when we debate the substance of the matter in due course.
I turn to the nub of our argument against the Bill's proposals—that part of the Secretary of State's speech where he was at his most defensive and his least convincing. The proposed change would be the greatest change in our nation's constitution at least since the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and possibly since the Act of Union itself in 1707.
It is right that the electorate should be consulted before changes of such magnitude are implemented, but they should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised in the House, and when Parliament has debated and decided. Instead, the Government are breaking with constitutional precedent by holding a referendum before voters are allowed to know the final shape of the

proposals. The people of Scotland and Wales will be asked to give their consent to devolution in principle and to trust Ministers to sort out the details afterwards.
Indeed, things are even worse than that. The Government intend to curtail Parliament's ability to perform its proper function. A pre-legislative referendum is designed to pre-empt parliamentary debate. It is not a new device. The device was the hallmark of continental dictatorships between the wars. European tyrants used the plebiscite to sideline their Parliaments; they used it to suppress the rights and liberties of their citizens. That is the model that the new Labour Government have decided to follow.
Why the Government's reluctance to follow constitutional precedent? Why their unseemly haste? Could it perhaps have something to do with the memory of what happened the last time that the proposals were put to the people?
In 1979, the referendums were rightly held after the legislation had been finalised, so that voters were able to decide on very specific proposals. Both in Scotland and in Wales, support ebbed during the referendum campaigns, as people came to appreciate what the proposals would actually mean. In my native Wales, opinion polls before the campaign were running at 4:1 in favour of a devolved Assembly, but on polling day, there was a 4:1 vote against it. People's enthusiasm for devolution waned when they saw that it would spawn expensive new bureaucracies and cause bitter disputes between the nations of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend get a clue from the Bill about who is supposed to be paying for the Scottish Parliament? Is not expenditure—by the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and central Government—on Scotland and Wales very much higher than on England? Despite that additional expenditure, general taxpayers are being asked to pay for the referendum. I suspect that they will also have to pay for the cost of the additional Parliament, the additional level of government. Should we not know now, before we English Members of Parliament have to vote on the matter, exactly who is supposed to be paying for it?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It was noteworthy during the Secretary of State's speech that he declined to answer a direct question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who suggested that his Kent constituents would be paying the cost of the referendum, but just a minute or two later confirmed that that would indeed be precisely so.
The reason why the Government are determined to hold the referendum before the voters can see the details of the legislation is that they fear that otherwise people will reach the same conclusion as they reached in 1979. That is why the Government are resorting to this unprecedented and anti-democratic approach.
The Secretary of State was silent—until pressed in answer to a question, when he was non-committal—about whether the main devolution legislation would be taken on the Floor of the House—a procedure described as game-playing by the Prime Minister during the debate on the Gracious Speech last week. We believe that that should happen, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will deal with the point when he winds up tomorrow.
The Union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland is based on a community of interests, a shared history, and an essential friendship between its constituent peoples. Like the relationship between Boswell and Johnson, that friendship can sometimes be prickly, but it is old and genuine. Its flavour is captured in the words of the highlander at Dunkirk, who told his comrades that, if the English surrendered too, it could be a long war. By its selfish and hurried pursuit of short-term advantage, Labour has jeopardised that relationship. A Union that has held fast for centuries could begin to fray in a matter of months.
The practical advantages of the Union are as much in evidence now as ever. Scotland and Wales have benefited enormously from massive inward investment during the Conservative Administration, including the LG plant in Newport, which is the largest single instance of foreign investment in Europe. The talent and industry of the Scots and my Welsh compatriots have enriched our island.
United, Britain has a strong voice in the councils of the world. Can anyone imagine that our constituent nations, if separated, would retain that influence? The House should be in no doubt that there would be a real danger of separation if the Government's proposals were to be implemented in their current form.

Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that many in the House, on both sides, hold their Britishness dear. I count myself among them. However sincere the Government may be about their desire to maintain the Union, the danger at the heart of the proposals is that no union can be dissolved or changed unilaterally by one partner. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the issue needs to be taken out of the party political battle, for all parties to consider the effects of constitutional change on all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? My constituents matter as much as those of hon. Members from Scotland.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and his constituents and mine are likely to be vitally affected by the Government's proposals. He raises an important aspect of the proposals.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the LG investment in my constituency, and suggested that it would not happen. Does he not realise that LG was fully aware that a Labour Government were on the way, and that devolution was part of our promises? LG sees the investment in Newport as one of the fruits of devolution. The previous Prime Minister has admitted that LG came to Wales primarily because of the work of the Welsh Development Agency, a devolved body created by a former Labour Government.

Mr. Howard: The Welsh Development Agency has done notable work, not least during the time that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was the Secretary of State. It is a far cry from arguing that the Welsh Development Agency played an important part in LG coming to Newport, which it clearly did, to arguing that the investment is a vote of confidence in the proposals for administrative and legislative devolution.
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). The ingredients necessary for a bitter and acrimonious breakdown

between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are all there in the legislation that lies behind the question before the House today. They include the anomalous position of Welsh and Scottish Ministers; the unfair representation of Welsh and Scottish Members in the House; the lack of clear delineation between the spheres of authority of this Parliament and the devolved legislatures; the opportunity for intrusive judicial review; and, in the case of Scotland, the financial tensions that will inevitably be caused by the granting of tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament while Scotland continues to be generously over-funded by the Westminster Administration.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the former Home Secretary realise that his credibility as a true and perfect democrat was destroyed for ever when he used a large Tory majority to impose the poll tax on Scotland alone? There are people in Scotland who will never forget that. It is one reason why there is not one Conservative Member left in Scotland today.

Mr. Howard: I have already answered that question. However, if we want to resume fighting those battles of long ago, the hon. Lady will remember that the degree of discontent with the previous rating system in Scotland, which led to those proposals, was even more intense than the discontent in England and Wales. That is why, in those far-off days, we legislated for Scotland first.

Mr. Dewar: When challenged by my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) about the poll tax, the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered that it was legitimised because it was brought about by an act of the sovereign Westminster Parliament, which represented every part of the United Kingdom. If this sovereign Westminster Parliament, which also represents every part of the United Kingdom, decides, for the better governance of the country, to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh to deal with specifically Scottish domestic affairs, will that not also be legitimised?

Mr. Howard: It will not be legitimised, for the following reason. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, he will readily see why. It is accepted in all parts of the House—perhaps not all, because the Liberal Democrats do not accept it, but it is certainly common ground between the Government and the Opposition—that, before legitimacy can be achieved, there should be a referendum on the present proposals, in addition to legislation passed by this Parliament.
What is at issue today is the timing of that referendum. If it took place after the legislation had been fully and finally approved by the House, there would be a great deal more point to the question that the Secretary of State for Scotland asked me.
It is precisely because the Government do not propose a referendum after the legislation, after all the questions have been answered and after the voters have seen the specific details of what is proposed, that they will not provide their proposals with the legitimacy that they might otherwise have acquired. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
I appeal to Labour Members to reflect on the consequences of what they propose to do. Can they justify putting the Union in peril for party political gain?


The Opposition will do all we can to prevent the legislation from being passed in its present ill-advised and divisive form. There must be time for the detailed legislation to be considered before the referendums are held.
The Bill would allow one of the greatest changes in our island's history to be decided by a bare majority of Welsh and Scottish voters, possibly on a very low turnout, without their having seen the details of the legislation, and without the people of England having been consulted.
In the deliberately short time that the Government have allowed us, we shall argue vigorously to convince Scottish and Welsh voters that devolution on such a model threatens the break-up of our country. We Conservatives know that patriotism is not the same as parochialism. We are proud to stand as the party not only of the Union, but of the constitution and of parliamentary sovereignty.
The Bill purports to give the people choice, but in fact it denies them choice, by denying them the information on which to base their judgment. It asks them for their unconditional votes. We shall resist the proposals in the House and oppose them in Wales and Scotland. We stand ready to take our fight to the people.

Miss Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech as part of this historic debate. The issue of Scottish devolution is close to my heart. What an honour it is to speak in the debate that will eventually lead to the setting up of a Scottish Parliament.
Now that Labour is finally and firmly in government, we can show not only the people of Scotland but the cynics and doom merchants that Labour will deliver a Scottish Parliament, if that is truly what the people want—hence the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. Before we undertake such constitutional change, we must be absolutely sure that it is
the settled will of the Scottish people",
as the late John Smith said.
The Parliament that Labour proposes to set up in Edinburgh will, I am sure, bring great benefits to the north-east of Scotland and to my constituents in Aberdeen, South in particular. The voting system will ensure that no one area in Scotland will dominate the Scottish Parliament, and the people of Aberdeen will have a more direct say in how their health and education services should be run. Aberdeen was ahead of the game when it came to providing health care for the whole community. Foresterhill hospital was built before the NHS was established from money raised by public subscription—it really was a public hospital.
Aberdeen is also a beautiful city. When the sun shines, it positively sparkles with the light reflected off the grey granite. There is much pride in our civic amenities in Aberdeen. Anyone driving into Aberdeen, South towards the Bridge of Dee will notice the mass of blooms—crocuses and daffodils in spring, or roses down the central reservation of the dual carriageway in summer. It is an impressive sight. A separate category had to be created for Aberdeen in the Britain in Bloom competition, because we kept winning year after year, and we thought that we ought to give others a chance.
It is no surprise that Aberdeen attracts a lot of tourists, many of whom visit the Duthie park winter gardens—a haven of tranquillity and peace in a busy, thriving city. For most people, Aberdeen is a thriving city. It still has a busy fishing port, and many of my constituents work in the fish processing industry. The biggest change to Aberdeen's economy and prosperity was the arrival of oil. I am glad to say that the oil industry is still buoyant in Aberdeen, especially as initial predictions were that the oil would soon run out. It has not yet, but the city must be ready in the future if there is a change in our economic circumstances.
Inevitably, Aberdeen, South has its share of social problems. The rising threat and menace of drugs are ever present and, even in Aberdeen, many young people find it hard to get a job. Those are two issues that the new Labour Government will begin to address.
It is in its parliamentary representation that Aberdeen, South has had the greatest instability. Any Member who thought that he or she might have a job for life after winning Aberdeen, South was quickly disabused of that notion. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who started the process by unseating Lady Tweedsmuir in 1966. He was not to last, but I am glad to see that he has made good now.
lain Sproat came next, in 1970. I have a debt of gratitude to pay to Mr. Sproat over a telephone bill. At the time, I was an impoverished student, sharing a flat in Aberdeen, South with other equally poor students. The telephone phone bill which arrived obviously was not ours—it was so large that even someone on a Member of Parliament's pay could not have afforded it. Would British Telecom, or its predecessor, accept that we could not have run up such a large bill? Of course not. But it was a letter to our Member of Parliament, lain Sproat, that finally got the issue sorted out. I can now publicly thank him.
lain Sproat was not to last, either. Next came Gerry Malone. He was defeated for the first time in 1987 by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran). The fact that my hon. Friend now represents a different constituency will give the House a clue as to his staying power in Aberdeen, South. In 1992, he was replaced by Raymond Robertson—my opponent at the election. Although obviously upset by his defeat, Raymond was always polite and courteous towards me. Aberdeen, South has see-sawed between the Conservatives and Labour, so there is a lesson there for me not to become complacent. However, there is a crumb of comfort. Aberdeen, South has obviously been a good training ground for new Members of Parliament. All my male predecessors have reached either ministerial or shadow ministerial positions—not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am putting down a marker for my own advancement.
To return to the subject of this debate, I am sorry to report that the procedures of the House have been usurped by the local Aberdeen evening newspaper, the Evening Express, which is the sister paper of that other well-known news organ of the north-east, The Press and Journal. I have to dispel the myth about the parochial nature of the latter—it was not the newspaper that ran the story earlier this century with the banner headline "North-East man drowns at sea", with the much smaller sub-headline "Titanic sinks".
Last Friday evening, the Evening Express published the results of a phone-in poll which it ran asking readers whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be waiting in anticipation to find out what verdict was given by his old stomping ground—he still keeps very much in touch with what goes on in Aberdeen. The majority of the readers decided that they did want a Scottish Parliament after all. That is all right then—I feel that I am now speaking for my constituents in speaking in support of a referendum. We cannot just depend on newspaper polls, however. We must also ask the people directly, and we will do so through the referendum proposed in the Bill.
I began by saying that this was a historic debate. I am proud to be the new Member for Aberdeen, South and I have to thank the House authorities, my colleagues and Madam Speaker for making it possible for me to operate in the House just like everyone else. They have all made it possible for me to play my part as a member of the new Labour Government—a Government who will bring about real change in the lives of the people and real change in the way in which we govern Scotland.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on her maiden speech. I have not heard all the maiden speeches of all the hon. Members who have represented Aberdeen, South, but I have heard quite a few. I have also had a somewhat chequered political career and I know what she is talking about—security of tenure. On behalf of all hon. Members I think that I can say that her speech was remarkable in its clarity and its passion and we look forward to hearing many more speeches from her in due course. I also thank her for her words about Raymond Robertson, who was my parliamentary private secretary in Northern Ireland and was a great support to me in my work. He will be pleased to hear the kind words that she spoke about him.
This has been a strange debate. Listening to the Secretary of State, I cannot help feeling that he does not really want the referendum. It is somehow unnecessary—it has been forced upon him by circumstances and he really lives in that period of the Labour party in February 1996 when the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), then the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, was making it clear that there were no proposals for a referendum. Indeed, as I understand it, he went on to say that the election of a Labour Government with the proposal in their manifesto would be the only mandate necessary.
The House of Commons Library is sometimes a useful source of information. I commend it to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will find from that source again that, some nine months later, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South decided that there should be a referendum: he went further and suggested that there should be two—the second would trigger the tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament. At that time, according to the information that has been made available to me by—

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can tell me why the right hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Back Benches today,

when he was speaking from the Front Bench on a constitutional issue on Friday. We cannot criticise decisions from the Chair, but we hope that they are made in the full awareness that there are no Conservative Members in Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The responsibility that a particular Member takes on a particular day is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ancram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that, for all the sadness of losing office, one of the privileges of being in opposition was that one could speak from the Back Benches in a way that was not possible when in government.
I want to make what I consider to be relevant points about the Bill. I was referring to the way in which the Government's policy on referendums has changed over the past 12 months, and pointing out that at one moment it was intended that there should be two referendums, which was described by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister as a
mature and sensible decision of the Scottish Executive Committee.
He went on to say:
This decision brings a Labour Government and a Scottish Parliament that much closer.
A week later, the present Secretary of State for Defence said that there would be only one referendum, not two, as there was no support for that policy. I have the feeling that one reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland was so unconvincing today is that he would rather have no referendum and proceed straight away to legislation to be passed by the heavy majority that the Government command in the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It would perhaps be for the benefit of the House if the right hon. Gentleman were to explain whether his status as a representative of the views of the official Opposition has changed since Friday. Is he speaking as a Back Bencher or as a Front Bencher sitting on the Back Benches merely for convenience?

Mr. Ancram: It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that when one speaks from the Back Benches one speaks as a Back Bencher. I am making my own personal points today, and I shall make them as I ought.

Mr. Wallace: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can clarify whether on Friday, when he spoke from the Front Bench, he was an official spokesman. Has he been sacked in the meantime? As the constitutional issues are the same, do the official Opposition know whether they are forwards, backwards or sideways, and do they have any clue at all what they are doing?

Mr. Ancram: Again, if the hon. Gentleman were to look at Friday's debate and compare it with today's, he would discover that the previous debate was about all the constitutional proposals in the Queen's Speech, while today's is about a single issue.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my experience as an Opposition Whip for four years,


a Front Bencher was never called from the Back Benches if another Back Bencher was available to speak. I do not know whether the precedent has changed, but I would be grateful if you could consider the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that a firm precedent is being set, but I shall take note of what the hon. Gentleman says and investigate the matter. He is also in danger of confusing me, because a moment ago he was on the Front Bench and now he is on the Back Benches.

Mr. Ancram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The first specific point that I want to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland concerns the fact that, as I understood him, he was asserting that preceding the referendum a White Paper would be published, which would be sufficient to explain to the people of Scotland and Wales that for which they would be asked to vote either for or against.
If the question to be asked of the Scottish and Welsh people in a referendum is whether they support the proposals for a Parliament and an Assembly as set out in the White Paper, why do not the questions as proposed in the Bill set that out? The question in schedule 1 says:
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament",
not a Scottish Parliament as set out in the White Paper, and the same goes for the Welsh Assembly.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland addresses his powerful legal mind to that matter, he will immediately see that the question being asked would be as relevant to a Scottish Parliament within an independent Scotland as to one on a devolved basis. I can only suspect that he has set out the proposition in that way because he does not want to be bound by the White Paper as endorsed by a referendum and wishes, if necessary, to be able to alter the legislation as it goes through Parliament and vary it according to circumstances that might arise, without the necessity of going back to the Scottish or Welsh people to ask for re-endorsement of a changed scheme.
If the Secretary of State does not mean that, surely the only other possibility is that he has sufficient contempt for Parliament to say that no changes can be made in the legislation as it goes through Parliament because the endorsement, in his view, will have precluded it. That question goes to the very heart of his proposals. Before the Bill becomes law, we must know precisely what the people of Scotland and Wales are being asked to endorse.
The Secretary of State referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. I want to offer him a word of caution. We have a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland, and the most important thing about such a policy is that we should understand it. Today he has in effect suggested that it was proposed by the previous Government—and therefore, under a bipartisan policy, by the present Government—that a White Paper should be drawn up and then put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; that is the analogy that he drew with what is happening now.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the framework document, but that is not a White, or even a Green Paper; it is an understanding between two Governments that was to be used as the basis for parties to try to reach agreement among themselves. It was made absolutely clear that it

was not the framework document that would be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, but any detailed agreement arrived at by the parties either with or without the help of that document.
I put that point with a good deal of force, because there is a suspicion in Northern Ireland that British Governments intend to produce White Papers and go over the heads of the political parties by putting them to the people in a referendum. I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to make it clear—as he failed to do in his reply to my intervention—that that is not the Government's policy, any more than it was ours.

Mr. Dewar: I am happy to oblige the right hon. Gentleman, because I certainly do not want to get into difficulties over the matter; if he checks the record he will see that I referred to the triple lock and to discussions followed by a referendum followed by legislation. I merely made the point that, when circumstances make it sensible, the opposition in principle can be set aside and we can have pre-legislative referendums. That was my only point, and I believe that I have been precise about it.
It is possibly fair that the right hon. Gentleman should have regard to the fact that the ballot paper is to contain a preliminary sentence that says:
Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament".
It is therefore a little unfair of him to take the question out of the context of the ballot paper.

Mr. Ancram: Is the Secretary of State therefore suggesting that he would accept an amendment to make that clear in the propositions themselves? If not, perhaps he would explain why not. We may table an amendment to that effect and see whether he will accept it.
The whole principle of what was being done in Northern Ireland was that the parties would come to an agreement that would be detailed in all respects and would be a matter not only for political parties but for two Governments, and that that would then be put to a referendum. That agreement would be reached—this is germane to the second point that I want to put to the Secretary of State—not by a simple majority but on the basis of what is called sufficiency of consensus.
Sufficiency of consensus was designed to ensure that any agreement that was to be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum would have the broad agreement of the representatives of both parts of the community. That is far wider and broader than a simple majority. The Secretary of State raised the subject of Northern Ireland, and I take him up on it.
The second concern of Conservative Members is that we are not talking about sufficiency of consensus, or even a simple majority of those able to vote in Scotland. Under the Bill, assent can be given by a simple majority of whoever bothers to vote in a referendum. If this referendum is to have any value, its outcome must be credible. The Secretary of State would not dissent from that. In his view, would a poll of 10, 20, 30, or 40 per cent. deliver a sufficiency of consensus? In terms of what I have been working on for the past four years, it would not.
The Secretary of State must be very conscious of the fact that, if any progress or process is to follow on a result emanating from such a referendum and move forward


with any chance of survival, it must be based on what would be accepted by the people of the United Kingdom as a whole as a credible outcome. He cannot duck the threshold question. What does he believe is the minimum level of voter participation in Scotland that would deliver credibility? I do not believe that, in his heart of hearts, he thinks that anything under 50 per cent. could deliver it. I hope that the Government will deal with that in their reply.
We have discovered in this debate that the cost of the referendums—I am not entering into the next stage, the preparation for assemblies—is to come from the Consolidated Fund, which, as I understand it, is not a Scottish or Welsh block fund but a United Kingdom fund. All taxpayers in the United Kingdom therefore contribute to it. I want to make it clear beyond peradventure that the Bill is telling my constituents that they will not be allowed a say in the outcome of the referendum but that they will have to pay for it. Under the principle of no taxation without representation, I believe that that has constitutional significance that the Government should address.

Mr. O'Neill: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain where funding was to have come from for the constitutional arrangements that he had hoped to set in place in Northern Ireland? Would the money have been taken from the Consolidated Fund or from the Northern Ireland block grant?

Mr. Ancram: The cost of the Northern Ireland talks process, which is happening on the ground at the moment, is shared between the Northern Ireland block grant and the Irish Government, because they are the two main participants in the process. The hon. Gentleman's point has been answered in a way different from that which he expected.
It is clear that the implications of even this rather minor Bill on a referendum have not been thought through thoroughly by the Government. Enormous constitutional issues will arise from the outcome of the referendums. If they are not addressed during the passage of this legislation, those outcomes could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that I will oppose the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is the seventh Member of Parliament for that constituency whom I have known, and she delivered a remarkable speech. The first Member for Aberdeen, South whom I knew was Priscilla, Lady Tweedsmuir. She, too, was a remarkable lady. The Secretary of State, who beat her in an election in Aberdeen, South, would concede that she was a most effective Member of Parliament. The constituency has had some remarkable Members and I suspect that my hon. Friend will follow in that remarkable line.
I take my hon. Friend up on one phrase. She said that she was concerned about the settled will—the settled will—of the Scottish people. I think that that is what has to be established.
There is something that puzzles me deeply. I do not understand why it was ever thought necessary to hold referendums before legislation.
I for one have made it quite clear to anyone who would listen that I would vote for the Second Reading of a Bill—any Bill—because the matter had to be discussed. I made it clear—I do not think that anyone in the Labour party dissented from this—that at the first sign of time-wasting by the Opposition, I would vote for a guillotine because it was no part of my business to disrupt the legislative programme of a Labour Government.
What therefore is the necessity for a pre-legislative referendum at all? If it is not to put pressure on Government Members, what on earth is it for?
I have been asked about the matter everywhere. At my reselection meeting for the Linlithgow constituency Labour party and elsewhere, I have repeatedly said that I would campaign ferociously for a referendum on the one meaningful question that a referendum can ask: "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997 or 1998 as passed by Parliament?"
That is a precise question that covers all the eventualities.
Given the size of the Government's majority, there may not be any eventualities; there may not be many changes. However, there is an assumption that in all the parliamentary discussions there will be no changes. The House of Commons cannot be taken for granted by implication.
Certain hard issues must be sorted out. I had the good fortune to be called to speak on Friday and drew attention to some of them.
There is only one to which I go back and ask my hon. Friends to ponder. The question was first put by John Lloyd. He called it the Bury, North question. It is a serious issue. How can the Labour Member who has won Bury, North—not a constituency over-endowed with wealth—by defeating Alistair Burt go on justifying to his constituents the fact that it takes fewer than 55,000 votes to send a Scottish Member to the House of Commons but more than 68,000 votes to elect an English Member? I think that I will omit the implications, particularly the public expenditure implications, of the so-called West Lothian question. It was dubbed that by Enoch Powell, not by me. We cannot assume that that subject will not be addressed in the parliamentary discussions.
That subject must be addressed somehow or other because, above all else, we are talking about something that the Government hope will last in perpetuity, and in the form in which it is proposed.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State thinks that I fall into the category of the "horribly familiar" or the "bastards", as he put it. However, presumably it is common ground among Labour Members that what is proposed should have at least a chance of lasting.
If the proposition is to have a chance of lasting, these awkward and difficult questions must be faced up to. The place to face up to them is the Floor of the House of Commons. If it is not done here, where else is it to be done? If it is not done, the whole proposition could be unstable. That would be deeply unsatisfactory and could lead to all sorts of sournesses.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman has made the important point that, in my constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire the electorate is 68,000. In most Scottish constituencies, the average size is about


55,000. Therefore, does he agree that it would be right and proper for there to be a single boundary commission for the whole of the United Kingdom to equalise those numbers?

Mr. Dalyell: I cannot agree or disagree off the top of my head because it is a complex matter. It would be incautious to make ex cathedra statements.
That kind of issue must be faced up to on the Floor of this House. We do not know how the parliamentary process will end. It might not end in the form proposed in the White Paper. If it does not end in that form, the referendum will be putting a proposal or a set of proposals that will be different or possibly significantly different from the final outcome. It depends what comes out of the parliamentary process.
Even at this 11th hour and 59th minute I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reflect on whether things could be done differently. There are two reasons for that, one of which I have tried to outline. This is the question of stability, and of endorsing something that can in no sense be interpreted as fraudulent. If we have a referendum on something that is different from what is finally proposed, the referendum is surely invalidated.
The second consideration is that of entrenchment. That point has been put strongly by some members of the Linlithgow constituency Labour party who have an honourable history of being absolutely dedicated to the idea of a Scottish Parliament. If a referendum took place on a settled set of proposals after the legislation had been through the parliamentary mill and said yes, that would give it an entrenchment and at least a chance of success that it would not otherwise have.
I thank the House for my hearing.

Mr. James Wallace: I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the doyen of the Scottish parliamentary group, on two matters. First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on a model maiden speech. She has clearly shown how quickly she has got the feel of the House and we look forward to the contribution that she will make in the coming months and years. She is right to say that hers is an unstable seat and, with the Liberal Democrats in second place, I am glad that she acknowledges that.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the number of Scottish Members and the size of Scottish constituencies if we have a Scottish Parliament. We adopt the view taken by the Kilbrandon commission that there is a case for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members to about 58, 59 or 60. We cannot run away from that issue and, no doubt, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate that in the months ahead.
As the first Opposition Member from a Scottish or Welsh constituency to take part in the debate, I want to reflect on the contributions so far by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe seemed to learn nothing from the general election campaign. His speech seemed to be a retread of those I

have heard on many occasions by the former right hon. Member for Stirling, Michael Forsyth—speeches which brought such distinguished success, or lack of it, to his party in the general election.
The right hon. Member for Devizes was today speaking from the Back Benches. I wonder whether that is because his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe was speaking from the Front Bench whereas on Friday his right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was speaking from the Front Bench. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman chooses whether to sit on the Front Bench or the Back Benches depending on which leadership candidate is in pole position on that day.
The right hon. Member for Devizes has been named as a potential shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. His speech lacked punch today and he was clearly making sure that he would not be selected for the post.
Although he is no longer in the Chamber, it is a pleasure to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), on his appointment. He has already indicated a co-operative and open approach, not least in getting on to the statute book the Scottish home rule Bill. His party, my party and a wide range of people in Scottish civic life have worked over seven or eight years to bring that project to fruition and I can assure him that, whatever our disagreements over the referendum, we will work co-operatively to bring that project to a successful conclusion.
The Secretary of State was complaining about Conservative Members talking about the cost of the referendum. He said that it will cost £5 million, less than one thirtieth of 1 per cent. of the entire Scottish Office budget. He said that they needed to lend a sense of perspective. My perspective is that it is £1 million more than the additional money that the Labour Government have found for investment in Scottish education in the coming year. They are spending more on the referendum than they are able to find to increase investment in Scottish education, which suggests that the concerns that we expressed about Scottish education during the election campaign will still be around when the referendum is long past.
A referendum did not form any part of the constitutional convention's proposals. At one stage it was considered and rejected, but it did not appear in the final scheme. Looking at the origins of why the Labour party became attached to the referendum, it was always our concern that it had the wobbles over tax. I am not claiming that it was over the principle that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers, because I have no doubt about the commitment to that principle by members of the constitutional convention. However, in the two and a half years leading up to the general election, the word "tax" seemed to make the Labour party appear like a rabbit caught in headlights. It was a word to which the focus groups reacted badly. On this matter the trumpet sounded an uncertain note.
The Labour party seemed to wobble in the face of the tax offensive by the former Secretary of State, Michael Forsyth, although it had no need to because we have seen the effectiveness of his tartan tax campaign. I suspect that, although Michael Forsyth was making no headway in Scotland, the Labour party strategists were alarmed that it


might rock middle England. It was plausible that the carefully structured strategy of not frightening the voters of middle England by not talking at all about tax could have been undermined by Tory spokesmen saying, "Look north of the border. Their proposals for tax varying"—although you can bet your life that the Tories would have talked about tax raising—"are the real Labour party proposals." The Labour party had to neutralise that and out of that came the two-question referendum. It was a policy born not of principle but of expediency. Perhaps in its campaigning strategy, it was for the Labour party a right expedient.
The right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) was quoted in Scotland on Sunday on 11 February 1996 as saying:
We have no proposals for a referendum because we want to legislate early and quickly for this outstanding commitment, and that is clear party policy.
So clear that only months later it was changed.
The story did not stop there. It was not only that on 27 June the policy was changed to a referendum with two questions. By late August, the Labour party had added not only a second question but a second referendum. The guiding hand of the then Member for Glasgow, Govan, hand in hand with the defeated Labour candidate in Edinburgh, West, Ms Lesley Hinds, managed to persuade Scotland's Labour executive into a double-lock mechanism, whereby a second referendum would be called by the Scottish Parliament before the tax-varying powers were ever used. That was such a significant event in the development of the Labour party's policy on a referendum that the now Prime Minister was moved to say:
I welcome the mature and sensible decision of the Scottish Executive Committee.
So mature, so sensible that it was jettisoned less than seven days later. He went on to say:
what we've actually got now is a policy that is completely firm, as it has been all the way through.
Just as former Tory Ministers shook in their shoes and looked over their shoulder when their position was described by Mrs. Thatcher as unassailable, so Ministers in the new Administration should watch out when their policy initiatives are described by the Prime Minister as mature and sensible.
As convention partners, the Liberal Democrats in no way feel bound by Labour's tactical change. We believe that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom represents—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said—the settled will of the Scottish people, and that a referendum is unnecessary. The convention comprised not only the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats but trade unions and representatives of Churches, local government, ethnic groups, women's groups and Gaelic culture groups in Scotland. It produced a clear consensus, which in many respects makes us different from Wales, where over the years there has not been the same popular consent. As has been pointed out, in the 1979 referendum, the provisions of the Wales Act 1978 won the support of only 20.3 per cent. of Welsh voters.
The shadow Home Secretary said that support waned during the weeks leading up to the referendum in 1979. One of the reasons for that was perhaps that Conservatives in Scotland were told by no less an authority than Lord

Home that if they voted against the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978, they would get something better. He said that a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers would be a danger to the Union. It is important when one quotes history not to quote it selectively.
In Scotland, we could readily concur with the proposition put by a senior Labour source in The Scotsman on 25 April last year that
a Scottish Parliament will be in the manifesto and the electorate can vote for it in the general election. That is all the mandate that is needed.
Indeed, 65 out of Scotland's 72 Members of Parliament—I am not sure if one should include the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but 66 if one does—have endorsed the convention scheme. Even allowing, as the Secretary of State said, for the liberal on the corner of the road in Anniesland—I do not think that there are that many in Anniesland, to be honest—who voted Liberal Democrat because he did not like the Conservatives, and even allowing for those who must have voted for us for other good and valid reasons, 65 out of 72 Members of Parliament represents a considerable mandate.
It is also important to remember that only 21 per cent. of the electorate voted for independence. Independence was a clear option. People may have voted Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative for a number of reasons—

Mr. Salmond: It was 22 per cent.

Mr. Wallace: Twenty-two per cent. voted for a single-issue party. I do not mean that in a demeaning way. The Scottish National party has a range of other policies, some of which we agree with, but it is a single-issue party. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) told people that if they wanted independence, they should vote SNP. They did not need to worry because the Labour party would make sure that there was not a Tory Government. England would deal with that and people could vote with head and heart for independence if they wanted. Twenty-two per cent. did so.

Mr. Salmond: So, might the 13 per cent. who voted Liberal Democrat have been voting for federalism?

Mr. Wallace: That might well be, or they might well have been voting along with the 45 per cent. who voted Labour and in favour of the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme. It is nonsense to call for the option of independence on the referendum ballot paper. People had a clear option of independence on I May. The unequivocal option of independence was available in 72 Scottish constituencies on 1 May, and 78 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected it. When the full-time score is four to one, there is no case for extra time and no case for putting an independence option on the referendum ballot paper.
A more serious objection to the Bill relates to the second question. It was Labour's concern about tax which prompted the whole exercise. My party does not shy away from the taxation issue. We believe that taxation responsibility is what establishes the link of accountability between those elected to the Scottish Parliament and those who elect them. During the election campaign, much play was made—the shadow Home Secretary did it again


today—of the Prime Minister's reference to an English parish council. I understood the Prime Minister to be saying that if an English parish council could have taxation powers, how much more compelling was the case for giving a Scottish Parliament such powers.
Taxation powers are the powers that translate an assembly into a Parliament. If the Prime Minister believes that, why is he prepared to countenance the possibility of a Parliament without taxation powers—a possibility opened up by the two-question referendum? In Friday's debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
it is odd that a directly elected Parliament with legislative powers should in some way not be trusted with the discipline and responsibility of financial powers, when such discipline and responsibility apply to every other tier of local and national Government. That is an odd non-sequitur."—[Officia/ Report, 16 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 279.]
Yet I understood the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), to say at the weekend that in the event of a yes, no vote, the Government would legislate for such a non-sequitur Parliament.
To avoid such a non-sequitur, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will seek to amend the Bill in Committee. We believe that we could consolidate the question so that the question of tax is not ducked. The question could be along the lines, "I agree/do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers." Even at this late stage, I ask the Secretary of State to consider such a proposition. It removes the possibility, however remote—I share his expectation that there would be a vote for taxation powers, but even the Minister of State has accepted the possibility that there might not be—of his having to face the prospect of introducing a Bill to establish a non-sequitur assembly with less power in one critical respect than an English parish council.
I remind the House that, in moving the Government of Ireland Bill in 1912, the then Liberal Prime Minister Mr. Asquith said:
However well we may transact … our common and Imperial affairs, we must perpetually bungle and mismanage the affairs of each unit."—[Official Report, 9 May 1912; Vol. 38, c. 700.]
We continue to bungle and mismanage the affairs of Scotland and Wales. The very fact that we have in one Bill a referendum provision for Scotland and for Wales, when there are different circumstances in each, shows an insensitivity all too typical of the House in dealing with Scottish and Welsh matters. We have already said that it is not unreasonable, given the different history of the issue in Scotland and Wales, that there might be different solutions for Scotland and Wales.
As we cannot vote on our reasoned amendment, we shall carry forward our opposition to the principle of a Scottish referendum to the debate on clause 1 stand part in Committee. We shall seek to amend the second question in the way that I have outlined.
If, however, we do not succeed in persuading the House of the wisdom of our views, there is no doubt, and let there be no doubt, that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will campaign for a yes, yes outcome in the referendum. At the end of the day, for Scotland the referendum Bill is merely a surmountable hurdle on the road to achieving in this Session a much greater prize—the home rule Parliament for which my party has campaigned for the better part of a century.

Ms Rosemary McKenna: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on her excellent maiden speech. She certainly set a very high standard for the rest of the new Members for Scotland on the Labour Benches to match.
I greatly appreciate being called to make my first speech in the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. It is the start of the parliamentary route to a Scottish Parliament for which I campaigned for many years prior to the Scotland Act 1978 and have actively pursued ever since. Today also marks the beginning of the most exciting changes to the constitution in centuries.
I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Norman Hogg, who was Member of Parliament for the constituency from 1979. He was considered an extremely diligent and respected parliamentarian in the constituency and in the House. I am certain that he will continue to contribute to public life in some way. He is an Aberdeen man and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, in the true tradition of Aberdeen people, he will be back at some time in the future.
For me, the past two months have been incredibly hard work and something of a whirlwind; I was selected on 1 April and elected on 1 May. That success was due entirely to the hard work of my family and colleagues in the constituency and, of course, the Labour party manifesto on which I stood. It included a commitment to the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme for a Scottish Parliament. It is a well-thought-out and carefully constructed scheme.
When Norman Hogg was elected in 1979, I was the chair of the East Dunbartonshire constituency party of which Cumbernauld was a part. My hon. Friend, the newly elected Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), was the election agent when we won what was then the most marginal constituency in Britain—a three-way marginal. It is a great delight that my hon. Friend and I have been elected together to make up the 101 Labour women Members of Parliament.
The House might be interested in an experience we had on our first day in London. With my hon. Friend the new Member for Ayr (Mrs. Osborne), we hailed a taxi and asked a London cabbie to take us to the House of Commons Members' entrance. Once we were settled, he said, "You the wives of MPs then?" That was the first lesson for that London cabbie and I think that there might be a few more lessons to be learnt, not only by everyone in the House, but in London.
The sitting Member who was defeated in 1979 by Norman Hogg was none other than the current hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who as Margaret Bain had won the seat with the slimmest of majorities-22, if I recall. She won it from the former Conservative Member, Mr. Barry Henderson. It was an incredibly hotly contested election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Moray and Mr. Henderson, who were excellent former Members for the constituency. Of course, part of the constituency, Kilsyth and the surrounding areas, was ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The redrawing of the boundaries meant that the constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth was created. It has been as it is now since 1984 and the people have had the good sense to return consistently a Labour Member of Parliament.
The constituency is at a very vulnerable stage in its development. Cumbernauld is one of Scotland's highly successful new towns—some would argue it is the best. It is vital to Scotland's economy because of its ability to attract quality inward investors, who provide quality jobs not only for the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and villagers of Banton, Croy and Queenzieburn, but for many others in the surrounding communities.
The development corporation, on which I had the honour to represent the people of the town for about 12 years, has been wound up—in fact, my term of office terminated the day before I was selected as candidate for the constituency—which means that we can no longer enjoy special development status. I think that it is appropriate that, after 40 years, Cumbernauld is no longer considered a new town.
The change came at the same time as the previous Government's botched reorganisation of local government. As a result, we were gerrymandered into Lanarkshire and not Dunbartonshire, our natural home. Hon. Members will recall that that was done solely in an attempt to create a Tory council in East Dunbartonshire. We all know that that try failed miserably, since there is not one Tory council in Scotland—a forerunner for the results on 1 May. It is quite clear, however, from the attitude of some Conservative Members that they have still not learnt any lessons from the people of Scotland.
The people in my constituency are rightly concerned that we should continue the momentum of development, particularly in terms of high-quality employment, the quality of shopping provision and commercial development in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth areas. I assure them that I will work tirelessly to meet their high expectations. I am certain that the Government's proposals will contribute significantly.
A decision will be taken shortly on the route of the M80, the final link in the motorway network of central Scotland, which will join the M9 and the M876 to the north and the M73 and the M80 to the south. I made it clear throughout the election campaign that I believed that it would be of tremendous economic importance to the entire area if a bypass that achieved several aims, including retaining the existing road as a relief route in the event of an incident, was built—in effect, two roads for the price of one. The upgrading of the existing road would leave Cumbernauld, with a population of 50,000, as the only town between Glasgow and the far north of Scotland without a bypass. I will continue to have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for transport about that.
Many hon. Members have referred to the sporting achievements of their constituencies, particularly those of their football teams. My constituency has a superb record both at national and international level in many sports, including swimming, wrestling, gymnastics and the special Olympics to name but a few. The football team, Clyde, has still to gain some honours. Since it came to Cumbernauld it has made slow progress—some might say very slow progress.
The Bill marks a milestone in the renewal of democracy in Britain. We have become the most centralised state in Europe. Politics have been discredited and politicians are regarded sceptically by our young people. Our young people voted for the Government, however, because we

offered them hope for the future not only about jobs, but through our promise to change the way in which the country is governed. We promised to return the decision-making process to the people, to involve them in the debate about the future direction of the country and to clean up politics.
Over the past few years, I have spoken frequently to groups of young people in my role as president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The one thing that really caught their interest was when I spoke about the proposals for a Scottish Parliament, particularly the form and nature of that Parliament: elected by a form of proportional representation, inclusive, consultative and with the commitment of the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats to field candidates on the basis of 50 per cent. women and 50 per cent. men. That is an important part of the proposals and one that we must never forget.
Young people are put off by the yah-boo behaviour that we often witness in the House—particularly the other night from Opposition Members—but they are excited by the prospect of having a decision-making body that takes on board the views of the many. They are interested in new politics, and the referendums will begin to show them what that really means.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention since the beginning and have sat on the executive all that time, representing Scottish local government. I am convinced that the Scottish people want a Parliament. They certainly voted massively for parties offering them a devolved Parliament, so I have no fears of asking them to endorse that view by referendum, which I am certain they will.
I say to the people who say that we should have the independence option on the ballot paper that the time to vote for independence was on I May, when the people returned only six hon. Members with independence as their option, clearly rejecting that view. To the people who say that we do not need a referendum, I say, "Why not?" A yes, yes vote will give the Scotland Bill the democratic legitimacy to ensure its safe passage through both Houses of Parliament, which should not ignore the will of the people. This is about constitutional change and the people have the right to express their views. I believe that there will be a substantial yes, yes vote.
I thank the House for listening with courtesy to my contribution and I hope to be involved in many debates in future.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) on her admirable maiden speech. The House probably heard more of the charm and the taxi driver more of the tenacity, but we have enjoyed listening to her and I am sure that she will make many other fine speeches. May I add that it was also a great privilege to be present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)?
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth paid a particularly gracious and well-deserved tribute to her predecessor, Norman Hogg, a much respected former Member of the House. He was particularly appreciated for the firm impartiality that he displayed in the Chair.


He was one of the most senior members of the Chairmen's Panel and, in that role, had to preside over a number of Bills with which he did not, I am sure, entirely agree, but his impartiality was never in doubt and he will be much missed here. I hope that the hon. Lady will not take that amiss.
It is important that Conservative Members take careful stock of what happened on l May. We have to recognise that, for the time being at least—I am convinced that it is only for the time being—we are an English rural and suburban party, in the main. There is, therefore, no point in spitting in the wind or in pretending that what has happened has not happened. We have to approach the Bill and the legislation that will follow with realism as well as determination.
I do not begrudge the Labour party its sense of euphoria at its victory. That is entirely natural. We felt something of that in 1983 when we had a very large majority, but the seeds of our downfall were sown in that very large majority. The man who made the most sensible comments, Lord Pym, then Francis Pym, was promptly sacked for his pains. He warned of the dangers of arrogance. I hope that the Labour party, when it has got over its sense of euphoria, will not lapse into arrogance, because that will damage not only the Labour party, but this Parliament.
I approach this Bill in, I hope, a spirit of realism, but as one who believes passionately in the United Kingdom. I have certain Scottish credentials. My family is Scottish in origin, and my wife is an Aberdonian. At the general election, my son had the great privilege of contesting the seat held by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham). No young politician could have had a more gracious opponent than him, and I thank him for the courtesy that he showed my son during the election.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I met the hon. Gentleman's son on a couple of occasions and I found him to be pleasant company. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his son has expressed a desire to stand for the Scottish Parliament on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party?

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a very unwise father who seeks to determine his son's career; all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that my son is a realist, as I am. He believes, as I do, that there will be a Scottish Parliament and it would be entirely understandable if he aspired to be a Member of it. If that were his ambition, he would have my total support.
As I say, I accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament, but I am a passionate believer in the United Kingdom and I beg the Under—Secretary of State for Scotland and all his ministerial colleagues to think carefully about the point that I raised in my intervention during the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is all very well saying that only 22 per cent. of people voted for independence on 1 May. In a general election, there are a range of reasons why people cast their votes, and we all know that. The overriding case for any referendum is that there is a specific question before people and they vote on it. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom I am

privileged to call a friend, that it would be far more sensible to have this referendum after legislation, but I fear that we are not going to have that option and that is why I make the points that I do.
We should give the people the opportunity to demonstrate their affirmation of the United Kingdom. I believe that at least 78 per cent. would do that, but I do not know. No hon. Member knows. If Scotland voted by a majority to be independent, of course it would become independent. That would be disastrous not just for the United Kingdom, but for Scotland. The United Kingdom is much greater than the sum of its parts. I was here and opposed the devolution legislation in the 1970s, and I have always opposed such legislation. Were the parties more evenly balanced now, I would be taking a different line because I would think that we could overturn the Bill. I know that we cannot in this Parliament. I have to be a realist, so I want to try to ensure that the Scottish Parliament does not lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
I take my example from a wise old Conservative whom I got to know when I first came into the House, the late Sir Derek Walker-Smith, who became Lord Broxbourne. He fought with passionate intensity the legislation that took Britain into what was then the Common Market, but the moment the decision was taken, he became one of the first Members of the delegated European Parliament. He said that he was going to try to prevent what he had forecast coming to pass. He made a significant contribution as chairman of one of the legislative Committees of that Parliament and was entirely positive in his approach. I would like to emulate that approach now. If we are to ensure that the Parliament does not become a fragmentary influence and lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, we shall have a much better chance of success if in the referendum there has been a conclusive affirmation of belief in the United Kingdom by the people of Scotland.
I therefore beg Ministers to think carefully about the inclusion of a third question. I know that I would have the support of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but for different reasons. He would be campaigning vigorously to try to increase the independence vote—that is an entirely fair and proper thing to do in a democratic debate—while we would be campaigning with vigour and, I hope, clarity to demonstrate the true advantages of the United Kingdom.
I must not stray into the subject of last Friday's debate. We are dealing now with a specific issue and a specific Bill. Sadly, I could not take part in Friday's debate because I was at the funeral of our late colleague, Michael Shersby. Had I taken part in it, I would have developed my arguments in detail.
Suffice it to say that I implore Ministers and all supporters of the Government to think again about the adamant refusal to include a third question. Let us face the reality; let the Scottish people make their decision and show how strongly they believe in the United Kingdom. If they do that with an affirmative answer to that question, which I believe should probably be the first question but which, with equal logic, could be the third, I do not believe that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament need necessarily lead to what many of us previously forecast. I should then be happier if a member of my family became a Member of it.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) on excellent maiden speeches. The fact that they have both been schoolteachers is a testament to the ability of teachers to make themselves heard. Certainly, the ability to project one's voice to the back of the room will be a great advantage. I look forward to hearing them bring to other debates experience which, as they said, was of no small assistance to them in describing the problems of their constituencies and the challenges that lie ahead.
I should particularly like to record our respect and support for my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. The nature of the difficulties of adjusting to this place will be greater for her, but it is important that she, like the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), will be blazing a trail for people with disabilities and those who have been denied access to too many opportunities. By coming here and making a clear statement about the inclusive character of this Parliament, she will help all those concerned with people who have disabilities. Her speech and her positive approach are examples to us all.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland. His long acquaintance and association with the cause of devolution is of great assistance in hammering home this case. It is clear that, no matter what the Government do, they will be accused of backsliding on devolution. One could say that we should have passed the Bill before Whit, that we could have delayed the Whit recess and spent the week here. Perhaps then the scribblers at The Scotsman, or at least the scribblers in its letters column, would have been silenced.
The Bill is, however, the first legislative proposal since the general election, which shows the high priority given to what I hope will be a long-term programme of decentralisation in the United Kingdom. It certainly gives the lie to the notion that, without a large separatist vote, there would be no guarantee that the legislation would be brought forward.
There was not a large separatist vote. I use the word "separatist", because I do not think it is right for any particular party to claim ownership or copyright of the word "nationalist". When we are dealing with legislation of this character, we draw a distinction between devolution and separatism. For the purpose of today's debate at least, I shall refer to such people as separatists or secessionists.
The Labour party had a difficult time last summer at the time of the initial decision—or perhaps we should say "instruction"—to have a referendum. I remember many of my colleagues being extremely concerned about it. I felt that there was a case for a pre-legislative referendum. I remember discussing it with Bruce Milian, the former Secretary of State, after the 1979 general election. He felt that the obstructionism and so many of the difficulties placed in the way of the devolution proposals at that time could have been avoided had there been a clear expression by the Scottish people during the early stages.
It is disingenuous of people to say that they do not know what the proposals are. Frankly, the proposals have been around for a long time. I happen to believe that the

work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention has brought the proposals to the Scottish people, who are now being given the chance to pass judgment on them as much as on anything else. When people read the White Paper, they will see that it closely shadows the convention's proposals. My first point, therefore, is that a pre-legislative referendum will assist our handling of the matter.
Secondly, let us consider the question of the Parliament's tax-varying powers. We were told by the former right hon. Member for Stirling that the Scottish people considered tax-raising powers an anathema. When the Secretary of State of the day raises a question of that character with the rigour and force that he did, it is only reasonable that, if we are to have a referendum, we say that the two questions—the principle of the establishment of a Parliament and the question of its tax-varying powers—should be considered together.
If any part of this country is to be governed by a different set of arrangements, it is only reasonable that the people who are to be most directly affected should have the opportunity to speak and be consulted. Before the constitutional changes are made, it is advisable that, after due debate, the people should be allowed the final say on the principle.
That is now becoming the consensus when we consider matters relating to what might come out of the intergovernmental conference and developments in the European Union. It will certainly reinforce the hand of the legislators if support for a Parliament is substantial. It has to be said that it will give some power to the elbow of those who oppose it if the majority is small. Nevertheless, the principle is that, before constitutional change is effected, the people should have the right of veto.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spent some time on the issue of a third question, on the establishment of a separate Scottish state. There seem to be two sets of arguments in favour of that proposal. The first is that, because the subject under consideration is a Scottish Government, all options should be offered to the people. Such an argument is usually made by separatists, and it is an understandable ploy.
Separatists know that, if they are to separate from the United Kingdom, they will first have to secure a majority of Scottish seats in the House. Although only time will tell, I should think that it would be easier to secure a majority of the Scottish seats than it would be to win a majority of Scottish votes. The United Kingdom does not have proportional representation, and constitutional change will occur if a majority of hon. Members is in favour of it. After such a majority, as I said, it would be desirable to hold a referendum.
If we included a third question in the referendum, however, we would be giving the nationalists what they want, without their having to secure the necessary electoral support in a general election. Therefore, I do not think that anything would be achieved by allowing separatists to include such a question, because—as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said—ultimately that third question was the only distinctive offer that they made to the Scottish people.
At the general election, the only difference between the agendas, manifestos and wish lists of the separatists and those of the other Scottish parties was their promise that,


if they won a majority of parliamentary seats, they would hold a referendum to determine whether a majority is in favour of Scotland separating from the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that we should hold a referendum only to show the weakness of the nationalists' case—after which, presumably, they will go away. Those who want a separate Scottish state will be in the House as long as there are politics in the United Kingdom, and it is nonsense to think that they would be obliterated by a referendum. There will always be a place in Scottish politics for the greeting tendency and a last home for the disaffected and alienated, and they will probably find that home within the ranks of the separatist party.
We should realise that the separatists' fortunes will rise and fall. Labour Members should ensure that the proposals for a tax-varying Scottish Parliament are coherently presented to the people in the September 1997 referendum.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution is on the Treasury Bench. He may wish to investigate a statement that votes will be counted on the Scottish local government level. The last time that votes were counted on a local authority level—the example that was provided—was by using the upper-tier authorities. There are now, however, about 50 authorities. Would it not be simpler to count votes on the basis of Scottish parliamentary constituencies, which is the usual system for ballots of national significance?
We are debating a great constitutional experiment, which has an element of risk. Labour Members are, however, confident that we will win. Nevertheless, some—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—will, as ever, work quietly and effectively to try to secure a "no" vote in the referendum. There may be some risk, but there is risk in any great political experiment. I think that we will be successful in securing two "yes" responses to the questions.
Although I may be wrong, I think that establishing a Parliament in Scotland is more certain than establishing an Assembly in Wales. The decentralisation debate in Wales seems to be much less advanced than it is in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: For reasons that I gave in Friday's debate, I make it clear that my personal vote on the second question would be yes.

Mr. O'Neill: Yes; and I think that my hon. Friend would not be wildly enthusiastic about the first question. Given his ability to campaign and to make his political presence felt, despite the loneliness of the cause that he might be pursuing, I suspect that we may cross swords, as we have done on other issues. Nevertheless, I do not think that that will affect our friendship, which has lasted the best part of 30 years.
The establishment of a Scottish Parliament will strengthen the Union, and show that it is possible to change our constitutional arrangements. It will also show other parts of the United Kingdom that it is possible to institute some form of decentralisation, and that decentralisation will not necessarily take the same form in every part of the United Kingdom.
The decentralisation process will demonstrate that some decentralisation will be available to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and it will create a dynamism that will establish a more credible democracy and a more accountable system of government and administration. It is very exciting that, in the early days of the new Government, we have an opportunity to speed that process on its way.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a daunting prospect, not least because I follow the exemplary and entertaining speeches of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna).
I am more than happy to pay the warmest tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Grant, who was the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire. Hon. Members will be aware of his distinguished 33-year record of service to the House, where he served as both a Front Bencher and a Back Bencher. He piloted through the House private Member's legislation, such as-most recently, in the 1996–97 Session—the Treasure Act 1996.
Today—which is the day of elections to the 1922 Committee executive—is an apt moment for Conservative Members to recall with affection Sir Anthony's wit, wisdom and many years of service on that executive. The House will not be surprised to hear that he was held in equally high regard and affection within his constituency, because of the prompt, courteous and effective way in which he dealt with constituents of all political views.
As one of my predecessors said, Cambridgeshire is "a county of villages". South Cambridgeshire is a most beautiful part of a most beautiful county. The southern part of Cambridge city and the countryside around it, which I have the honour to represent, combines natural beauty with economic and intellectual dynamism. It is a working countryside with a thriving agricultural sector, yet many new and innovative companies and industrial firms are finding a home there. It is overwhelmingly a small business economy, which is why, in the past five years, unemployment in South Cambridgeshire has been halved.
The proximity of Cambridge—as a centre for employment, based on scientific and technological advances—combines with a relatively unspoilt character to make South Cambridgeshire a magnet for new development. It is therefore no wonder that South Cambridgeshire is the fastest growing district in England, especially when one considers the opportunities of living in such beautiful villages as Grantchester, Orwell, Duxford and Dry Drayton. I could continue that list—perhaps I should, because other villages may be jealous—but I will spare the House a list of the many beautiful villages in South Cambridgeshire. They occupy, however, a position both geographically and economically advantageous.
I look forward to participating in many debates in the House, and I will do so on the basis of experiences from within a constituency that, in its understanding and its experience, has so much to offer.
In science, we have at Hinxton the human genome project which will lead to the largest genetic sequencing laboratory in Europe—indeed the world. In health,


in Addenbrooke's and Papworth hospitals we have two of the leading hospitals in the world. In agriculture, we have the plant breeding institute, which is the source of the well-known Maris plant varieties. In education, we have not only the colleges of Cambridge university, but two of the leading further education colleges.
It is a great honour to represent a constituency in which is blended the best of what is new—in science, in industry, in health and in education—with the best of our inheritance in environment and in history. Cambridgeshire, as Rupert Brooke wrote, is
the shire for Men who Understand"—
and, I should add promptly, for women too.
I speak in this debate only too aware of the inheritance given to us in our United Kingdom. Most of us are, in a personal sense as well as in a constitutional and historical sense, products of the Union. For nearly three centuries, this House has been the representative institution of the people of Scotland just as much as of the people of England. We are intermingled, in history and in nationality. I am the grandson of Scots as well as of English. My inheritance is bound up with the Union, and I have every right to defend it.
It is ironic that the Government's first legislative initiative is to introduce proposals that, essentially, are those on which their predecessors foundered in 1979. I submit that the Bill is flawed, for several reasons. The House is being asked to approve or disapprove a popular vote on a major constitutional change before it has been given an opportunity to see the character of the proposals in detail.
The details within the proposals are likely to be deeply significant. Which powers are proposed to be transferred, and with what expenditure and tax revenues? What are the implications of two fiscal regimes within one economy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked? What would be the mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the Westminster Parliament and a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly?
We do not know in detail the character of the proposals; nor do we know whether those issues will be fully clarified before a referendum is held. Unfortunately, it would be only too characteristic of the Labour party to wish to proceed on the basis of generalities, without regard to all the practical issues.
I contend that it would also be wrong to proceed to a referendum on the basis of a White Paper alone. White Papers are proposals, but they are subject to many changes. I have had experience of writing White Papers, and I would never have been so rash as to assume that they would represent the last word, still less to seek to subject them to a popular vote before they had even been fully debated in the House.
That point brings me to a flaw that goes to the heart of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to seek to legitimise the Government's proposals in advance of their presentation to the House. Such a referendum is a constitutional aberration. As Mrs. Thatcher said, nothing should be permitted under our constitution which conflicts with the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. I suspect, however, that the Government will argue that a referendum would be a mandate for legislation. That is wholly wrong. If the Government wish to legitimise

constitutional change through a referendum—and there is a perfectly good case for doing so—it should be post-legislative, and not prior to legislation.
In 1975, the previous Labour Government undertook a referendum. The then Leader of the House admitted that the purpose of the referendum was to determine the policy of the Government, as
Parliament, of course, cannot be bound by it."-[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 293.]
Is this proposed referendum, therefore, equally nothing but a device to decide Government policy? On the issue of a tax-varying power, perhaps it is, but the Government pretend otherwise, as they insist that all their Members must campaign for a "yes" vote. Ominously, the Secretary of State for Scotland is already talking of a final decision by the people, before the Bill has gone through the House. It is an unconstitutional pretence that a final decision can be made on an issue of such constitutional importance before the devolution proposals have even been presented to the House, let alone have passed into legislation.
The flaws in the Bill are many, given that it is a Bill of relative simplicity. Its simplicity belies its significance or the impact of its failings.
The Bill fails to offer a vote to the people of England on an issue of great constitutional importance for the continuation and structure of the Union. It fails to provide for a vote for the many Scots and Welsh who have a legitimate interest in the future of their countries and of the Union, but who live in England and are not resident in Scotland or Wales. It provides no safeguard to ensure that the vote in the referendum would represent a sufficient majority of those eligible to vote. The Secretary of State for Scotland appealed on one occasion earlier in the debate to the precedent of 1979—unwisely from his point of view, I suspect, as that precedent would act against him.
We are therefore left with the proposition that a minority of the potential electorate in only two out of four parts of the Union may be invited to decide the future of the Union, without regard to the people of England or to the many Scots and Welsh people living in England. That would be deeply resented by those so excluded.
The people of South Cambridgeshire will not be indifferent to an outcome in which they are to be ruled by laws made by Scots and Welsh representatives, while their own representatives have no say over the same laws in Scotland and Wales. They will resent the introduction of a referendum as an apparent attempt to bind Parliament, and as a device that should be alien to our constitution.
We have heard much from Labour Members of their mandate. I fear that we shall hear them stretch the issue of a mandate beyond breaking point as a concept. They have already applied it to decisions going beyond the terms of their manifesto. They will no doubt apply it to their devolution proposals, on which so many questions were and are still to be resolved.
I, too, come to this House with a mandate. I am pledged to oppose the breaking up of the United Kingdom. I am pledged to defend the sovereignty of Parliament, and not see it surrendered or undermined. Most of all, I am pledged to serve the interests of my constituency to the best of my ability and judgment. It is a privilege to represent South Cambridgeshire in this House and to follow Sir Anthony Grant, whose example has always


been one of service and dignity. In defence of our constitution, therefore, I urge the House to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a privilege to follow and to congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who was making his maiden speech. It was also a privilege to listen to his very reasoned argument. If he makes such reasoned arguments in future, the House will, I am sure, listen to him with great diligence. I knew his predecessor quite well. I shared almost 30 of the 33 years he spent in the House, so I understand and appreciate the compliments his successor paid him. I offer the hon. Gentleman best wishes.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made wonderful maiden speeches. I am glad that the electorate of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney do not have the habits of the electorate of Aberdeen, South. I am only the fourth Member to represent Merthyr Tydfil since 1900, and only the third to represent Rhymney since 1929. We have a sense of political longevity, so it has been hard to present myself as new Labour.
It was even harder when, during the election of the Speaker, I sat next to a new Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who rather unkindly reminded me that the last time we met was when I presented him with his investiture mug in 1968 at Birchgrove junior school in Cardiff. It made me feel that I would have some difficulty presenting myself as new Labour.
Listening to the speeches and the many references to constituencies prompted me to think about those who have represented my constituency. Of the four representatives for Merthyr whom I mentioned, two—Kier Hardie and S. 0. Davies—were strong supporters of some form of home rule. My predecessors in Rhymney offer an interesting diversity. The first was Aneurin Bevan—the scourge of any form of devolution or any suggestion that anything but the United Kingdom Parliament mattered. He was followed by Michael Foot, who was a passionate supporter of devolution.
We all share a feeling of the importance and power of this House of Commons. I would not support measures that damaged the integrity of the United Kingdom. I am not a separatist, and I shall not vote for anything that looks like separatism. The separatist vote in my constituency was minimal at the election. I do not come to the House to support any proposal that could lead to the break-up of the integrity of the United Kingdom or the United Kingdom Parliament.
I very much support the referendum. It is odd—we have to admit this among ourselves—that the Labour party, when in opposition, arrived at the decision to have a referendum in such a convoluted way, but a referendum is desirable and essential for Wales.
It has been fashionable in some quarters in Wales to deride the proposed Assembly as a feeble institution. It is certainly not true that, because it will not have tax-raising and legislative powers, it will not be an important constitutional change. It is a change of enormous

significance, and we would be foolish to pretend otherwise. A proposal that will transform the character of the civil service in Wales cannot be seen as a minor constitutional step. It is a serious step.
I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Welsh Office. The civil service that has developed since the establishment of the Welsh Office and the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales in 1964 was designed to serve Westminster, Whitehall and Cabinet government. The new proposals are that the Welsh civil service will serve a different body, with the open system of decision making that I assume will characterise the Welsh Assembly. That is an area of profound change and significance.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. He has great experience of the civil service. What is his judgment about the civil service having two masters—in our case, one in Edinburgh and one in London?

Mr. Rowlands: It will be very important to make it absolutely clear in the detailed legislation where responsibilities lie and who will be responsible to whom. If not, the system will fail. As a veteran of the 1970s legislation, I assure my hon. Friend that—if I understand the speech made on Friday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—it will be clear that the Welsh Office civil service will be answerable directly to a Welsh Assembly. That will be a profound change. It is not a minor administrative decision. We must be frank that, if we set up a directly elected Assembly in Wales, there will be competition between Westminster Members and Assembly men and women. It would be very strange if that did not happen.
The change is not one of minor practicalities, even leaving aside the question of the roles of the Secretary of State and of Westminster Members of Parliament. It is important to clarify whether the questions that we are now entitled to debate will be disallowed in this House as infringing the responsibilities and powers of the Welsh Assembly if certain functions are transferred.
I use those illustrations to show that the establishment of a Welsh Assembly is not a minor step. It is not a modest step forward—it is a change of considerable constitutional and political significance, which requires the consent of the Welsh people.
The second reason why I believe in a referendum is that, until now, that consent has been withheld—and not just in the 1979 referendum. One interesting feature emerges when we make a historical assessment of the debates in the 1950s and 1960s, as I have done. A gulf grew up between what are now called the chattering classes—I belong to those chattering classes, but I think that that pejorative description is a good one—who have promoted the case for a Welsh Assembly for 30 or 40 years and the large silent majority, who have shown considerable scepticism about the issue. We would be foolish to forget that gulf.
I was a member of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party in the 1960s and was among those arguing for a Welsh Parliament or Assembly—an elected body of some kind for all Wales. I was slightly contemptuous of those whom we saw as the old guard—lori Thomas, Elfed Davies and the Monmouthshire mining Members—who


bitterly opposed the commitment of the Labour party in Wales to any form of devolution. I have to confess, on reflection, that they were in closer touch with grass-roots party opinion, and probably with Welsh public opinion, than the likes of me. It is salutary for us to remember that. The consent of the Welsh electorate is all the more necessary, making the case for a referendum even stronger.
I share some of the reservations expressed about the process that we have adopted. I hope that this is not a nit-picking parliamentary point, but I am a passionate believer in this place—that is why I have spent so much time fighting to get here and stay here—and I find it strange to bring forward a Bill with a reference in the schedules to Government proposals that we have not seen. There is no White Paper. Before all the stages of the Bill are completed, we must have that White Paper. In parliamentary terms, it would be better for us to have the detailed proposals alongside the Bill.
I have supported two referendums in my parliamentary lifetime. The Referendum Act 1975 was explicit, referring specifically to proposals already laid before the House in the White Paper and the renegotiated settlement on the European Community. In 1979, an Act of Parliament was submitted to the electorate, so it was again clear what we were deciding to have a referendum on. I understand that, for a variety of reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends have chosen a different process, but before all the stages of the Bill are completed, we should see the White Paper.
I shall not oppose the Bill, but I find it necessary to set out my reservations. By choosing pre-referendum rather than post-referendum legislation, we may create difficulties for some of our colleagues. As the Bill will allow counting, and presumably totals, on a county or borough basis, some hon. Members representing Wales and possibly Scotland may find that the verdict of their electorate is contrary to their personal view. They are interesting dilemmas, but they may create problems, as some of our colleagues may support the legislation in the House and then find that their constituents are not so keen on it.

Mr. Salmond: That is an interesting scenario. Of course, it could apply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). As the hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, how would he expect his hon. Friend to move under these circumstances?

Mr. Rowlands: My knowledge of my hon. Friend is so considerable that I would not attempt to speak for him. I am sure that he will explain his position clearly.

Mr. Dalyell: The House will forgive me if I display a little curiosity as to how my constituent, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party, will vote.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that all will be revealed.
Having chosen the order in which the process is to be conducted, some hon. Members will face a dilemma of Burkean proportions in their approach to the legislation.
I support the Bill, because I support the referendum. I am one of that small, dwindling, enthusiastic band who voted for the devolution proposals in the House in 1978 and voted in the subsequent referendum. It was a painful

process for me, as someone who has now achieved 77 per cent. of the vote in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, to find myself so overwhelmingly in a minority in 1978.
I would support devolution proposals for Wales of the kind that were introduced in the 1978 Bill. However, I await the Government's detailed proposals with great fascination and interest. Clearly, in some respects they will be different from those introduced in 1978. I shall exercise the same right to say yes or no as, I am glad to say, the House will give my constituents.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned Keir Hardie. It was Keir Hardie who said in 1885 that a Scottish Parliament was "just round the corner". It has been some time coming, but we hope that progress is on its way.
We have heard some good and interesting maiden speeches this evening, to which I shall briefly refer. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a most effective maiden speech. Although he is new to the House, he is clearly not new to the political process. Indeed, he said that he had written some White Papers. I had an overwhelming temptation to ask him which ones. That would have been totally out of order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but I am sure that we can look forward to hearing many more speeches from him in the course of our proceedings.
I do not know South Cambridgeshire nearly as well as the hon. Gentleman does, but he will forgive me if I am tempted to say that I am not absolutely certain that the pikes will come out of the thatch in Cambridgeshire to resist these constitutional proposals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prove me wrong.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) made an equally effective speech. She comes to the House with a formidable reputation in Scottish local government, but nowhere in her curriculum vitae did she say that she did impressions of London taxi drivers. She revealed an entirely new facet of her character this evening.
The hon. Lady made a most gracious maiden speech. I am sure that she will argue with as much determination for increased funding for Scottish local government inside the House as she did outside it. She paid a well-meant tribute to her immediate predecessor, Norman Hogg, a man with whom I disagreed on just about everything except that we should conduct our differences with good humour. She also referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If the hon. Lady conducts herself in the House in the same way as the two hon. Members to whom she referred, she will add a great deal to our proceedings.
We also heard a remarkable maiden speech from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). Maiden speeches that combine humour, constituency knowledge and a touch of controversy are by far the best, and the hon. Lady's speech did just that. She said that Aberdeen, her native city, had won Britain in Bloom as many times as Ireland had won the Eurovision song contest. She also displayed a great knowledge of her constituency.
The hon. Lady referred to her very many predecessors in controversial and humorous terms. She said that the Secretary of State for Scotland was responsible for


starting the instability in Aberdeen, South, and perhaps more, who knows? She mentioned lain Sproat. During the previous Parliament, kin and I were told by a genealogist in the south-west of Scotland that we were remote relatives. I do not know which of us was more alarmed—however, he was one of the more effective Ministers in the previous Government.
The hon. Lady also mentioned Gerry Malone. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) will be interested to know that a couple of days ago, a senior Conservative told me that a friend of his and his wife had been anxiously pondering over whether to vote for Gerry Malone in his constituency or against the Scottish National party in Inverness. They finally decided to cast their votes against the Scottish National party and not to vote for Gerry Malone, who lost by two votes.
The hon. Lady also said that Raymond Robertson was extremely polite to her in defeat. The fact that she mentioned politeness and Raymond Robertson together is a great testimony to her diplomacy, and I am sure that she will bring that characteristic to our debates. She made a splendid and remarkable maiden speech and we all look forward to hearing many more such contributions.
The Secretary of State for Scotland made a graceful opening speech. I was particularly impressed by the way in which he repelled the last-ditchers in the Conservative party one by one and helped them dig themselves in deeper as they intervened.
I should mention that after a forceful start, there are now only four Members on the Conservative Benches defending the essential unity of the United Kingdom. I understand that considerably more of them are voting for the new 1922 Committee. That demonstrates that internal warfare is now more important to the Conservative party than the future of the United Kingdom.
None the less, the Secretary of State for Scotland was extremely deft in the way in which he repelled Conservative Members' attacks. He made the point that he had a record on devolution stretching back to the 1950s. Some of his ministerial team have track records stretching back to the 1970s—on the other side. We shall see how that is played out during the passage of the Bill.
I was rather alarmed by the Secretary of State's revelation that the Bill gives 123 Scottish peers the right to vote in a referendum. I had not noticed that aspect. It could be interpreted as a rather underhand attempt to get the support of the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, who is soon to be ennobled and no doubt is anxious to have his say in the referendum vote.
The Conservatives' response to the legislation showed that they had learnt very little from the election campaign. Indeed, the speeches seemed to pick up very little—even from the recent Scottish debate. They were very much a statement of the positions that we have heard for far too long in the House and elsewhere.
I was somewhat relieved that at least the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), did not go down the road of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who I see is back on the Front Bench. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the argument for a special

blocking mechanism, a threshold, a 40 per cent. rule, or a 50 per cent. rule, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has suggested, is one of the most offensive arguments and anti-democratic notions that could disgrace the House. To argue that for Scotland and Wales while simultaneously not being prepared to say that it would apply to a referendum on Europe is most insulting behaviour to the people of Scotland and Wales, and in large measure explains the Conservative party's reduced position in both those nations.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It has not reduced, it has disappeared.

Mr. Salmond: I was being polite. This is my latest phase, as hon. Members will recognise. I shall move out of that phase to turn to what I think about the Bill.
There is an inconsistency at the very heart of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. Two legitimate positions can be adopted in looking for consent from the people. The first is to say that the general election provides the mandate and thereby the authority for the Government to proceed with their programme—or, indeed, for a political party to proceed with its ideas.
If the new Labour party had taken such a course and said that it had won a considerable victory and therefore had the majority to go forward with its legislative programme, I do not think that anyone could reasonably have gainsaid that as a substantial mandate for applying its ideas on the constitution. At a later stage, depending on the judgment, degree of controversy and the number of changes made to the proposed legislation, it might be appropriate to subject that mandate to a post-legislative referendum, as in the 1970s. That is one way of addressing legitimacy, mandates and consent, and it is consistent.
The second position is to say that the general election did not produce a mandate on the proposals, there is some uncertainty, many other issues clouded the general election environment and the issue was not finally settled. That is the course to be taken by the Government, as explained by the Secretary of State. There is therefore no substantial or democratic argument for excluding the option of independence from the ballot paper. The option of independence is supported by many people in Scotland. We have been through the argument in democratic terms many times, when Governments have either refused to consult the people of Scotland or said that the people of Scotland did not have a decisive view one way or the other.
The Secretary of State was kind enough to say in his opening remarks that my cuttings file was more extensive than his. I suspect that it is not that my file is more extensive, but that we keep different quotations. I have kept a number of quotations about the Secretary of State and his previous support for a multi-option referendum.
On 13 April 1992, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Secretary of State, then the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, said:
the party's 49 Scottish MPs would campaign"—
I assume that he was committing the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to such a campaign at that stage—
for a multi-option referendum on the country's political future, something which had been endorsed at the meeting of all Scottish Labour MPs.


In a speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Dundee, the Secretary of State repeated that call. The Scotsman reported:
Calling for the democratic case for a referendum to be shouted from the rooftops, Mr. Dewar said that the Government should not take refuge in a rigged referendum on proposals which did no more than tinker with the present problem.
After the 1992 election, in which, incidentally, the Scottish National party got fewer votes and won fewer seats than it has now, such a view was widely shared across the parliamentary Labour party. The late John Smith said in the Daily Record in July 1992:
The Labour Party must keep the Scottish issue at the centre of the political stage. That's why we are campaigning for a multi-option referendum.
The Scottish TUC supported the argument for a multi-option referendum. A new political grouping, Scotland United, was formed, which argued forcefully for and mobilised opinion on the case for a multi-option referendum. Indeed, Scotland United's campaigning document, "What Price Democracy?", noted:
one of the big problems with the 1979 referendum was the absence from the ballot paper of the independence option, which meant that a significant section of the Scottish population was denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred option.
Such a democratic viewpoint was well reflected in early-day motions such as one tabled by William McKelvey, the then hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, on 8 December 1992. The option to hold a multi-option referendum on the governance of Scotland was supported by 26 hon. Members across the parliamentary Labour party—many of whom have been present in this debate. One amendment to the early-day motion was tabled by David Shaw, the then hon. Member for Dover, who managed to introduce the subject of Monklands district council into the issue of a multi-option referendum, but managed to acquire only one signature, his own.
The argument for a multi-option referendum was widely supported because it was felt to be fair that a proper test of opinion, if a test of opinion were required, should reflect the three major constitutional options that were on offer to the Scottish people.
Hon. Members may not be aware that there are a number of constitutional precedents on the question of a multi-option referendum, including those set by the House of Commons. In Newfoundland in the late 1940s, for example, a constitutional convention met. It decided that only two options for its constitutional future should be presented to the people of Newfoundland. However, the Attlee Privy Council—the Privy Council of a Labour Government with a landslide majority—decided that that would not be fair. In their response to the Newfoundland constitutional convention, the Government stated:
The Government have come to a conclusion that it would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue, and they have, therefore, decided that confederation with Canada should be included as a third choice on the referendum paper".
The option of confederation with Canada eventually came top of the referendum, even if the majority in favour was less than the majority in favour of devolution in the 1979 referendum in Scotland.
Both in terms of previous support for the democratic option of allowing people in Scotland the free choice between independence, devolution and the status quo,

and in terms of precedents and proceedings in the House, there is substantial support for the idea that a multi-option referendum is not just feasible but desirable when there are distinct blocs of support for constitutional options.
I have heard the Conservative party in Scotland say that it was greatly encouraged during the general election campaign by an opinion poll that showed that support for the status quo in Scotland had reached 30 per cent. That point has been made many times as the Conservative party ranks have delved over the entrails of electoral carnage. They have said, "Well, there is still hope because support for the status quo reached 30 per cent. in an ICM poll." ICM is a reputable polling organisation, although I should mention that it was the same polling organisation that gave Labour a 5 per cent. lead across the United Kingdom during the election campaign. None the less, the poll indicated that there was a bloc of support for the status quo.
I would be encouraged by a poll on the referendum in The Sunday Times, which showed that the number of those preferring independence and of those preferring devolution was tied at 35 per cent. I would argue that most polling on the independence question has shown such a level of support over recent years. The essential truth is that I do not know, and no one in the House basically knows, what the preferred option of the Scottish people would be after a referendum campaign offering all the constitutional options. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) shakes her head, which is interesting. Some results of opinion polls are consistent. For example, no opinion poll in recent years in Scotland that has laid out the three constitutional options has shown a majority in favour of devolution.

Ms Rachel Squire: The people of Scotland have just had a referendum that gave them the three options of the status quo, devolution or independence. It was called a general election, it was held on 1 May and a majority of the Scottish people voted for devolution.

Mr. Salmond: Then why are we having another referendum? The hon. Lady says that the general election gave a mandate. If the general election gave a mandate, Labour should go ahead and legislate for its devolution proposal. If the general election did not provide a mandate and the Labour party wishes to consult the people, it should consult the people democratically on the major constitutional options that are available. The hon. Lady and the new Labour Government cannot have the argument both ways. Given that the Government have chosen to go through the consultation process, it is an early blot on their record not to make the democratic choice available to the Scottish people. I suspect that Ministers in their quieter moments, even in the midst of their euphoria, know that to be true.
The Government's proposals have not been furnished for this debate, and one of the few reasonable points that have been made by Conservatives today is that the Bill mentions Government proposals that have yet to be published. I await the White Paper with interest. I hope that it is constructive and that it will be published soon. I was encouraged by the remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he referred to the Claim of Right. He was a signatory and co-author of that document as the leader of the Labour party in Scotland.
Hon. Members will remember that the Claim of Right referred to the
sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine a form of Government best suited to their needs.
It did not suggest that
sovereignty resides with English Members of Parliament and that's the way it will stay.
There is an essential difference between those two attitudes to sovereignty, and I was encouraged because the Secretary of State seemed to indicate that he was staying true to the Claim of Right. If that is the case in the White Paper, and if it does not obstruct democracy, the Scottish National party will not obstruct the White Paper.

Mr. David Stewart: It is with a mixture of trepidation and awe that I prepare to make my maiden speech this evening. I thank hon. Members and officials for their help in the past few weeks. I also add my congratulations on the three contributions from the other hon. Members who have made maiden speeches. They are a hard act to follow. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his remarks about Conservative voting behaviour in my constituency, which I shall bear in mind.
Sir Winston Churchill described his maiden speech as a terrible, thrilling yet delicious experience. Disraeli's maiden speech in 1837 took three hours to complete and, at the end, he was shouted down. I assure hon. Members that I shall not take three hours, but whether I am shouted down is a decision for them.
I shall start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Russell Johnston, who was the Member of Parliament for my constituency from 1964. Sir Russell Johnston was an intelligent and articulate Member, who was steeped in the history and culture of the highlands, and it was my privilege to meet him during the 1987 election campaign. He is a man of great integrity and conviction, interlaced with a dry sense of humour. He has fought for highland interests for 30 years and achieved many great successes. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to pay tribute to Sir Russell Johnston on his retirement from the Commons and to send their best wishes to him on his elevation to the other place.
The highlands have a rich and proud history of political radicalism. Honesty, fairness, social justice and a strong sense of community are our values. They are old and enduring values in the best highland tradition. An early champion of the highlands was Charles Mackintosh, who made his maiden speech in 1874. He was a rarity as a radical crofting Member of Parliament who piloted crofting legislation through the House, which changed the rights and responsibilities of tenants against the powerful interests of large landowners.
As a highlander, I am proud to be the first Labour Member to represent the constituency of Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber. It is a unique constituency because, during the election campaign, it was the only four-way marginal in the United Kingdom. It has the highest mountains and the deepest lochs. It has the beauty of Glencoe and Loch Ness and the isolated splendour of the

islands of Rhum, Canna, Muck and, of course, Eigg, which chose self-rule instead of the dead hand of absentee landlordism.
The constituency is of tremendous size—750,000 hectares. It stretches from the North sea to the Atlantic. Tourism is very important. It is responsible for 20 per cent. of the highlands' gross domestic product and it supports more than 20,000 jobs throughout the highlands. That is why transport is so important in my constituency and why I shall campaign for a reduction in the price of petrol and diesel, which is extortionate in the highlands and islands.
Inverness is the capital of the highlands and has seen some historic events, although some hon. Members may not be aware of them. For example, Inverness is the only place in which the full Cabinet has met outwith the Cabinet Office. In 1921, the Cabinet met at the conference that agreed the treaty that created the Irish Free State. Members present included Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, Austen Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. This evening, I extend an invitation to the current Cabinet to visit Inverness without the need to sign a treaty.
Several members of the Cabinet visited the constituency during the general election campaign. I pay tribute to everyone who did so, especially the Prime Minister. Not many hon. Members will know this, but he played in goal for my local football team, Inverness Caledonian Thistle. Shortly afterwards, the team won the third division championship. Something obviously rubbed off. I must report to the House however that, since 1 May, my team has lost three games in a row. The Inverness provost, Allan Sellars, remarked to me at a recent game that that had never happened under the Conservatives.
My constituency is also the stronghold of the world's oldest team sport—shinty. Legend has it that the game was played by saints and scholars, which suggests that the House has never had a shinty team. Although annual matches are played by exiles at Stamford Bridge, the venue is closer to the heart of my hon. Friend the Minister for sport than the noble and ancient game of shinty. In antiquity, shinty replaced clan warfare as a way to settle internal disputes, so I warmly commend it to the Conservatives. The Camanachd cup final will be played on 7 June at Fort William, itself a cradle of the game. This year's finalists are the ancient rivals, Kingussie and Newtonmore, which is a heartland of the sport and now a haven for skiers who flock to the Cairngorms.
I welcome and support the Bill, which will pave the way for a long-awaited Scottish Parliament, a new dynamic Parliament with more young people and more women, which will tackle the chronic problems of the highlands—low pay, poverty, a lack of housing, poor bus services and growing hospital waiting lists. Those are the failures of the past 18 years. We need a new approach.
People might ask what a Labour Government will do. Let them come to the highlands and see the faces of the unemployed young people who have been cast aside like unwanted pieces on a chess board. People might ask what a Labour Government will do. Let them come to the highlands and see the low-paid hotel workers in Nairn and Aviemore. People might ask what a Labour Government will do. Let them come to the highlands and see the quango state in operation—that system of patronage that would bring a blush to the cheeks of a mediaeval monarch.
The Labour Government offer the prospects of radical change for the highlands. In 1964, with two Labour Members of Parliament in the highlands and islands, Harold Wilson made his historic pledge to establish a Highlands and Islands development board, which stopped the depopulation of the highlands and transformed the area. In 1997, with two Labour Members of Parliament in the highlands and islands, we can bring power back to the highlands, by creating a Scottish Parliament—the dream of Keir Hardie, and the unfinished business of John Smith.
I was privileged to meet John Smith in the highlands. I remember his speech in Ullapool one warm spring evening, when he spoke with passion about creating the Scottish Parliament, and about his dream of being the first highland Prime Minister. His tragic death brought an end to the latter goal, but now the torch has passed to the present Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It is time that we seized this historic opportunity. We owe it to the people of Scotland to deliver a powerful Scottish Parliament. As a highland Member, I pledge to do everything in my power to fulfil the demand of a double yes vote during the referendum campaign. If it is the will of the Scottish people, the creation of a Scottish Parliament will light a fiery cross from mountain to mountain through the highlands, signalling a new era of hope and opportunity.

Mr. Richard Livsey: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who gave such an eloquent maiden speech. I appreciated the delightful highland tones that came through—something with which I am familiar.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his fulsome tribute to my former colleague, Sir Russell Johnston, who served the House so well. The hon. Gentleman arrives with a true radical highland pedigree, and I can see that he has a great future in the House. I was delighted to hear his speech, as I was to hear the other maiden speeches that we heard this evening. The new Members have made a great contribution.
My Welsh constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, is the third largest in Britain. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber probably represents what is, in geographical terms, the largest, and much of what he said about transport and remoteness applies as much to my constituency, where there are many problems similar to those that he described.
Devolution for Wales is fundamental to the good governance of Britain—of the whole United Kingdom. Liberal Democrats regard that as most important. The previous Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, Jonathan Evans, whom I defeated at the general election, did much good work for Wales during his tenure as a Welsh Office Minister. However, he stood firmly for the status quo on devolution.
My predecessor believed that the status quo was satisfactory, and he was swept away in the general election on 1 May 1997. The result was the 40th to be declared in Wales. I was the person who removed the last Conservative Member of Parliament from Wales, and with him much of what I would describe as the "incredibility" of Conservative policy on the status quo.
The result was declared on 2 May, which, by happy coincidence, was my birthday. In my acceptance speech, I asked Jonathan Evans what he thought of proportional representation now, when his party, having polled 19.5 per cent. of the votes in Wales, had no Members elected to the Westminster Parliament, whereas the Liberal Democrats, who had polled 12.3 per cent., had two, and Plaid Cymru, with 10 per cent. of the votes in Wales, had four. That is a real conundrum, which constitutional reform will have to put right.
The people of my native Brecon and Radnorshire want a fair outcome on devolution, and we have now reached something of a constitutional crisis, with no Conservative Members in either Wales or Scotland. The status quo has been totally eclipsed, and the arguments advanced by Conservative Members today are dead and buried; they were eclipsed at the general election. Conservative Members must, as some Conservatives in Wales are already doing, go back to the drawing board and have second thoughts. Some are now talking about the possibility of supporting a Welsh Assembly.
I believe that the people of Wales need a Welsh Assembly, and my party has been campaigning for a Welsh Parliament for the past 100 years. We are now on the threshold of achieving a modest level of democratic accountability in Wales; at the moment, there is a huge democratic deficit there, because Wales has been largely ruled by quangos spending up to 40 per cent. of the Welsh Office budget, to which the Conservatives have appointed members of their own party who have not been at all representative of the democratic situation in the country.
The Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly are not exactly earth shattering. Liberal Democrats in Wales would like to see the creation of a Sennedd, with more teeth than the proposed Assembly. Our litmus test would be, first, that the Senate must be able to legislate; secondly, that it must have tax-raising or lowering powers; and, thirdly, that it should have true proportional representation.
We would like a 75-Member Assembly. According to the formula proposed by Labour, 40 Members would then be elected by the first-past-the-post system, and 35 would be chosen on an additional Member basis. That would give a precisely proportional system, reflecting the votes cast in Wales. I do not think that the 60-Member Assembly proposed by Labour would fall within the inclusive spirit that Welsh Office Ministers claim the Assembly will embody, so I hope that there will be scope to amend the proposals when the Bill for Wales is introduced after the referendum.
The test that Liberal Democrats will apply in Wales will be whether the Assembly allows fair representation in terms of geography—balancing the north, south, east and west—in terms of the political balance of parties, and in terms of gender, as judged by the number of men and women within it. If the Government genuinely wish to produce an inclusive Assembly, clearly the proportionality of the voting system must be addressed further.
The idea of introducing a referendum for Wales has the wholehearted support of Liberal Democrats there. I believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers are men of honour, and we have no difference of opinion about the question that will appear on the ballot paper in Wales. We are indeed in favour of a Welsh Assembly, and it is entirely right that we should support its creation.


As a party, we shall campaign for a yes vote, and we shall be happy to do so. I can therefore leave Welsh Office Ministers in no doubt that that will happen.
The chances of establishing a Welsh Assembly have been few and far between, especially in this century. We must therefore grasp the opportunity now, and we must show leadership. In my experience of life, nothing worth while is ever gained without courage and resolution, and that is what we shall demonstrate in the referendum campaign.
Welsh Liberal Democrat Members will not vote against the Bill. The proposed devolution of power to a Welsh Assembly needs all the help that it can get, and. my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik) and I will campaign for a successful outcome. However, we feel that it was unwise of the Government to decide on a Bill combining the Scottish and Welsh referendums. The Bill is hybrid, and includes the proposals for both countries. That creates difficulties in that the questions in the Bill are different, and the subsequent legislation may be different, too. It must be noted that the proposals for Scotland create difficulties for my Scottish colleagues. I am sure that they will continue to make their position clear, both in the debate and elsewhere.
Naturally, for the sake of consistency, Welsh Liberal Democrats would wish to give a Welsh Sennedd the same powers as those conferred on a Scottish Parliament. Undoubtedly, we will try to amend the subsequent Welsh Bill to that effect. In the meantime, it is our considered view that it is vital to secure a yes vote for a Welsh Assembly in the referendum. Wales needs and deserves that outcome.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is a pleasure to welcome back the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I remember spending a happy week in beautiful weather in Brecon and Radnor at a by-election. I was sorry he won that time, but I was one of those who rejoiced when his result was announced on 2 May to complete the establishment of Scotland and Wales as Tory-free zones.
This has been a remarkable debate, and I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) and for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for their excellent maiden speeches. They have made their mark already, and I look forward to working with them in the future, particularly as we work towards the establishment of a Parliament for Scotland.
When a constitution appears to have fallen into decay and when people begin to hold the democratic system to be a matter for despair—if not contempt—there are serious problems in the fabric of our state. Until 1 May, too many young people in particular felt that the democratic system was not working—that it did not matter what happened, we would always have a Tory Government who would be able to ride roughshod over everybody else. There is now an atmosphere of hope generated by the general election result and we have to take that forward.
We need a change in our constitutional arrangements to ensure that the democratic system works, and is seen to work, effectively and fairly, around the country. It is

not a time for separatism—that idea was defeated at the election. However, it is a time for radical constitutional change. I welcome the fact that this Bill is the first to be presented to Parliament by the Government, and that it is designed to start the process of establishing a Parliament for Scotland. The Parliament will take democratic control of the £15 billion budget of the Scottish Office, as well as a swathe of legislative and administrative responsibilities. Furthermore, the Bill will give appropriate discretion on the Budget to that Parliament in the future.
Above all, I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a mechanism that will entrench the position of the Scottish Parliament for all time. I am worried that Conservative Members are already looking for alibis and ways to nitpick to allow them perhaps to sidestep the result of a referendum in the future. They will not be allowed to get away with that.
In making this plea to the House, I should perhaps ask for a number of other offences to be taken into account. I was the constituency delegate—rather a young one, I have to say—to the Labour party conference in Blackpool in 1976 who moved the motion that committed my party to the principle of home rule for Scotland. It has been a long time waiting, but I am delighted that we are now getting rather nearer to it. I certainly campaigned for a yes vote in the 1979 referendum, and it is worth remembering that we won that referendum with a majority of 77,435—good enough in any other circumstances, but the incoming Tory Government were not interested in such results. Furthermore, I have raised this issue again and again—along with a number of colleagues—and used all the devices available to a Back Bencher ever since the disastrous day when Margaret Thatcher came to power and introduced more and more centralised government in this country.
The commitment to Scottish home rule goes with the job of being the Member of Parliament for East Lothian—with one or two aberrations, such as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who passed through my constituency briefly in 1974.

Mr. Wallace: Is it not possible that, in 1974, even the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) as in favour of home rule?

Mr. Home Robertson: I should have checked the cuttings, but I have a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman has shifted his ground on that issue, as he has on others. We should pursue him on that if he serves on the Committee—or if he ends up as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as some have threatened. We shall draw a veil over that visitor to Berwickshire and East Lothian.
My immediate predecessor, John Mackintosh, was one of the most powerful advocates of a Scottish Parliament in the 1960s and 1970s. I vividly remember sitting in the Public Gallery, watching him stand in this very place making the case for Scottish home rule all those years ago. We have been stuck for far too long and it is time to get on with the job.
The Member who represented East Lothian in the last Scottish Parliament in 1707 was the great Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who gave eloquent and accurate warnings of the perils of the "incorporating union" which has left Scotland as a jurisdiction without a legislature


for the past 290 years. The experience of centralised and uncontrollable government at the Scottish Office in the past 18 years must make a conclusive and irrefutable case for home rule in Scotland now—the sooner, the better.
The quaint fiction that this Parliament can be an effective protector of the rights and interests of people in Scotland was finally exposed when this House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to impose the poll tax in Scotland in 1987. I have had private conversations with English Conservative Members of Parliament—some who are still in the House, and others who have departed—and I have asked them how they could possibly have voted to impose such an unfair and unworkable tax on my constituents in East Lothian which would not apply to their constituents south of the border. The reply was always the same—they did not know what they were voting for, but trusted the then Secretary of State for Scotland and voted in accordance with the Government Whip.
That was the worst measure, but there have been plenty more—the centralising of the NHS in Scotland, local government reform and the endless catalogue of quangos. It has always been absurd to put exclusively Scottish business through the House, but the experience of the Thatcher years has demonstrated that it is dangerous. A nominally democratic system allowed a minority to treat the nation of Scotland with absolute contempt and nothing like that must ever be possible again. That will change when we implement the package of reforms agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
I have some anxieties about the Bill. It may be difficult to persuade people to come out to vote when there is no noticeable opposition. At the general election in Scotland, 60 per cent. of the voters supported parties committed to Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom; 22 per cent. voted for total independence; and 17 per cent. voted for the status quo.
With great respect to Conservative Members and to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), who is in his place representing the Scottish National party, the Conservative and Scottish National parties were the single-issue parties at the general election in Scotland. The Scottish National party's single issue was independence, while the Conservative party tried to make the present state of the United Kingdom the single issue that it hoped people would endorse. Both those extremes were rejected overwhelmingly, and there is a consensus for what John Smith referred to rightly as
the settled will of the Scottish people.
That is not controversial, and since there is no credible challenge to this proposition—not even from the ranks of what is left of the Conservative party in Scotland—it may be difficult to galvanise people to come out again to vote for the obvious, particularly when the concept of a referendum as a constitutional device is not a familiar one in any part of the United Kingdom. There have been only two referendums in Scotland hitherto, and the result of one was overturned at the whim of an incoming Conservative Government—which, perhaps, does not bode awfully well.
As we proceed with this referendum—and since the Government have plans for other referendums on the European single currency and on electoral reform—perhaps the time has come for a new statute to establish the position of referendums in the British constitution. Should it be entirely up to the Government—of whatever

persuasion—to decide what use should be made of referendums, or should there be an overarching constitutional provision to deal with that matter? What guidelines should there be on the conduct of referendums and the drafting of the questions?
I have one detailed point for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the questions on the ballot paper will clearly require a yes or a no and are as clear as possible. Above all, what is the real significance of the result of a referendum? At present, as I understand it, a referendum result can only be advisory and for the consideration of this sovereign Parliament. Should we be making it binding on Parliament or on future Governments? There is a case for considering that option and finding a device for doing so, particularly as Conservatives are already considering ways in which they can shrug off the result of this referendum.
I confess that I am not an enthusiast for the concept of referendums, but I fully endorse this one as a mechanism to entrench the position of Scotland's Parliament for all time. I support the Bill and urge people throughout Scotland to turn out in numbers and to vote yes to both questions when the referendum takes place.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Before I get into the argument, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to my predecessor, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. He is widely liked as an individual and, although it is a trite remark, he is almost universally regarded as a very nice man. He was particularly noted for his politeness, whether it took the form, on occasions, of giving lifts to Opposition canvassers on rainy evenings, or of insisting on opening the door for his female departmental chauffeur. He did extremely well to hold his seat for so long against repeated and energetic campaigns by my party. At the count in Edinburgh, where six constituencies held their counts, he was largely regarded as having made the best speech of the evening, which is a great testament to his character on an evening when he lost.
Also, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to my constituency. I have wooed it long enough. This was my fifth attempt to win it and, counting local and national elections, I think that my score is won 14, lost eight, so I have shown my enthusiasm for west Edinburgh. It is an area that is steeped in history. We learned some of that again recently when a splendid Roman lion in stone was dug out of the River Almond, which reminds us of the time when the Romans tried unsuccessfully to keep the Picts at bay. We have fine mediaeval churches and tower houses. We have two schools that are more than 350 years old and many fine modern schools. We have stately homes and housing estates that are less stately. We have the Union canal, from the heyday of Scottish industrialisation, which is shortly to benefit from a great injection of money from the millennium fund. We have the Forth road bridge—I suppose that I claim half and Fife presumably claims the other half—which is a great icon of British Victorian development. There are many things in the past of which we can be proud.
Politically, in the days when Mr. Gladstone represented Midlothian, a good deal of what is now west Edinburgh came into his constituency. He campaigned for Irish home rule with great vigour until an advanced age. I hope that we can achieve Scottish home rule more rapidly.
My constituents would greatly benefit from a Scottish Parliament, because the present Government system has let them down. In many parts of my constituency, houses desperately need investment. We have schools that need investment and more teachers and equipment. We have colleges where young people do not have enough resources and have a bleak outlook for getting a career that they would like to pursue. We have a fine hospital, for which local people have fought several successful campaigns against the local health board, which tries to remove all the best facilities. The hospital needs greater investment and, like other hospitals, needs many more nurses and doctors who need to be better paid.
We have problems that other areas may also have. The successful edge-of-town shopping centre has caused the ruination of many of our suburban shopping centres. We have a desperate need for investment in public transport, both railway and busway. The council is trying to do something about that, but there is a need for Government assistance to oil the wheels, metaphorically speaking, making it easier for public and private money to come together, rather than operating in the convoluted way that was determined by the previous Government.
We have the greatest traffic problem in Scotland—not as great, perhaps, as some such problems in England, but the situation is bad and needs attention, again at central Government and local government levels.
Above all, we do not need a second Forth road bridge, which was threatened by the previous Government, or the so-called Barnton bypass, which was almost universally condemned. I hope that the Scottish Office will rapidly show that it is not pursuing those foolish ideas.
We need a system in which communities can be helped to revive themselves. A Scottish Parliament would give a great opportunity for doing things better and for helping people to help themselves, instead of having a begging-bowl mentality and blaming London all the time, which is what we tend to do.
On the Bill, there are two main issues: one is home rule; the other is whether we need a referendum. On home rule, I agree with those who think that sovereignty lies with the people and not with Parliament. Whether they are Scottish people, English, Welsh or Irish, they have the sovereignty and we are merely lent it to look after for a short while.
This House is an example of how not to run the affairs of Scotland. We really must invent a Scottish Parliament that conducts its affairs better than this. It is a travesty of democracy that the system here—put into effect conscientiously by the various people occupying the Chair—does not allow those parties that provide all the Opposition Members in Scotland and Wales to speak to and vote on the amendments that they have tabled on this vital issue. In what other democratic body would that be allowed? The whole thing is a travesty.
Having been here such a short time, it might be wrong of me to say so, but my enthusiasm for a Scottish Parliament increases with every day that I spend at Westminster, and that is partly due to listening to the English Conservatives.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We cannot listen to any Scottish or Welsh ones.

Mr. Gorrie: Bring them back. All is forgiven.
A Government health warning should be attached to English Conservatives, because listening to them gives any red-blooded Scotsman a heart attack; they simply do not understand. I am sure that they are worthy representatives of the shires and suburbs, but they understand nothing about Scotland. Occasionally, they go there to shoot grouse. If they read a book, they occasionally come to the Edinburgh festival, perhaps, but they understand nothing whatsoever about Scotland. They display the sort of arrogance that previous British people perhaps displayed to some of their colonies. Their conversations are similar to the conversation that Edward II had with some of his cronies when riding away from the battle of Bannockburn and planning the following year's invasion. He took 10 years before he was compelled to make peace. I hope for their sakes that the Conservatives will learn a little quicker.
On the referendum, I must make the following points, which my colleagues have already made to some degree. It is wrong to combine the Scottish and Welsh referendums in one Bill. It is a marriage of inconvenience, because the positions in Scotland and in Wales are quite different. The form of Parliament proposed for Wales is totally different from that proposed for Scotland, and the local political position and level of support for the concept are different. The Welsh have not had a convention that has come up with an agreed scheme.
It is unnecessary to have the referendum. In 1992, the Conservatives marginally improved their position in Scotland, in terms of both seats and votes, and they hailed that as complete support for the status quo. On this occasion, they have suffered the greatest defeat anywhere, in my limited knowledge of political history. At least the Canadian Tories held two seats; in Scotland and Wales the score was 112–0: there are 40 Welsh and 72 Scottish seats, and the Tories hold none. Surely that teaches us something and gives us a message that the Government can go ahead with their legislation for the convention scheme.
We are against the second question, which is remarkably foolish and will be read by many people as, "You really do want to pay more taxes, don't you?" However it is worded, that is how it will be seen and there is a great risk that it will be lost.
Logically—this will appeal to the Secretary of State, who is an intelligent man—the second question opens the door to the Scottish National party, because if, as he said in his speech, the referendum is to endorse the Scottish convention scheme, that is a reasonable proposition; but to ask whether there should be tax-raising powers is to consult on a scheme that no one is proposing, in which case the argument against the SNP having its scheme on the ballot paper disappears entirely. The second question is logically unsound and politically idiotic. The convention scheme was a great example of co-operation and I hope that it will lead to better politics.
My final reason for opposing the referendum is the way in which it was imposed on us by diktat from London; it was the worst sort of old-style politics. We are trying to achieve a new politics of co-operation in Scotland. I have co-operated with many Labour Members, and I have greatly admired their efforts in the Scottish convention. I hope that that can continue.
We may argue about the small print, but we must get it across that the ideal of people running their own affairs is a great ideal and a great moral cause. We need


somebody with Gladstone's eloquence to get that across. Wallace and Bruce did not make speeches before their battles about whether there might be three groats more in the tithes. That is not what we are concerned about: we are concerned about the great cause of whether people can run their own affairs, as we believe they should.

Dr. Lynda Clark: It is a great privilege to be able to make a contribution to this debate, especially in view of the wisdom and passion of those who have spoken before me. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) will continue the tradition of giving people a lift home on rainy nights; if ever I need a lift, I shall certainly approach him.
I should say at the outset that this is a maiden speech. I mention that partly to get my plea in mitigation in early, and partly because I have discovered that the word maiden can be defined as a Scottish beheading machine, similar to the guillotine. That raised some anxiety in my mind; I was reassured when I found no mention of it in "Erskine May", but I wondered whether it might be in some Scottish appendix that I had not yet found.
It is customary for a new Member to refer to her predecessor; I am pleased to follow that custom. My predecessor, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, was fortunate enough to enjoy a high reputation in the House and an international reputation as Foreign Secretary in the previous Conservative Administration. We share a common history and training as members of the Faculty of Advocates. As a Scots lawyer, I hope that brevity has been inculcated into me.
I pay tribute to Mr. Rifkind's illustrious career and long service as a constituency Member of Parliament. I wondered whether I should apologise to Conservative Members for having reduced their options in their desperate search for a new leader.
On one matter, I am pleased to adopt Mr. Rifkind's words. Quoting Victor Hugo, he said:
Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come."— [Official Report, 16 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1831.]
He was referring to devolution. I invite the House to ponder those words in the context of this debate. My predecessor was eloquent and learned and had a great respect for the traditions of the House; he was also justly proud of Edinburgh, Pentlands, my new constituency.
It is my great good fortune to represent a constituency that stands only a few miles from the centre of Edinburgh and the likely seat of the new Scottish Parliament. In some respects, my constituency can be seen as a microcosm of Scotland, consisting of highland and lowland, town and country. The highland area takes the dramatic shape of the beautiful Pentland hills that cradle the urban lowland.
In the urban areas there is a powerful juxtaposition of poverty and wealth, and my constituency has been described as one of the most deeply socially divided in Britain. Under the previous Administration, those divisions deepened and festered. It is part of the new Government's duty to help to heal those divisions. Every constituent from every area has something to offer and must feel included. For my part, I offer to serve the interests of all my constituents to the best of my ability.
The Bill provides for referendums in Scotland and Wales, and I welcome both. Hon. Members will excuse me if I confine my remarks to Scotland, because I know

more about it. The time for devolution came many years ago—the principle can be defended on the grounds of historical precedent, democratic accountability, administrative efficiency and popular demand—but the opportunity was lost.
There have been false starts, false hopes and false prophets, but now we are fortunate to have a new opportunity. Now is the time to let the people who live in Scotland make their voice heard again. This debate marks an historic opportunity. We are taking the first steps towards bringing about profound and necessary changes. We must not do that without full debate.
Every generation must re-examine the principles of democracy and test their effectiveness. Every generation needs voices such as those of Thomas Paine, the Chartists or the suffragettes. Equality, fairness, accountability and effectiveness are the standards by which we must judge our democratic institutions.
The Bill represents an historic opportunity for those governed in Scotland to judge their institutions and vote for a new Scottish Parliament with devolved and tax-varying powers. That means not only a transfer of governmental responsibilities, but that decisions that directly affect individuals living in Scotland will be made with reference to their elected representatives.
I commend the Bill to the House. I support it because it honours the finest principles of democracy. In supporting democracy we help to establish a society in which other great principles of fairness and natural justice can flourish.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a privilege to make my first speech in such an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Members who have made such excellent maiden speeches. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who has arrived at the House after five attempts. Although it has not taken me five attempts, I know how he feels. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who made an excellent speech, to the Labour Members who spoke so well and to the hon. Ladies who have spoken with such wit, charm and wisdom.
All those hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches present something of a problem to the hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches because they get mistaken for Labour Members. Given what was said earlier, I am not sure whether it is worse to be mistaken for a Labour Member's wife or for a Labour Member. The thought of that persuaded my wife to stand for Gloucestershire county council rather than Parliament. Happily, 2 May provided an opportunity for a double celebration, at least in Tewkesbury.
It really was a celebration, because it is a great privilege to represent such a wonderful constituency. Tewkesbury has many urban parts but the countryside has been described as
A place of gentle contrasts.
My arrival in Tewkesbury was a more severe contrast than might have been thought. In 1471, there was a famous battle at Tewkesbury in the war of the roses. It was won by the Yorkists, as many hon. Members will know. I am glad to say that the 1997 battle of Tewkesbury was


convincingly won by a Lancastrian. It gives me great pleasure to serve as the first Member of Parliament for Tewkesbury as a seat in itself for more than 100 years.
It is the custom of the House to pay tribute to one's predecessors. That may take me a while because the seat has been cobbled together from several different constituencies. Most of it was contained in the old seat of Cirencester and Tewkesbury, which was represented with such distinction by Nicholas Ridley. I pay tribute to his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who represented the seat with great distinction for five years. I thank him also for the help that he gave me. I am pleased to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), part of whose constituency I have taken. Last, but by no means least, I pay tribute to Paul Marland who unfortunately lost his seat, partly because of the boundary changes, and partly because of the swing against the Conservatives. I took quite a chunk of his seat, for which he does not thank me.
We in Tewkesbury somewhat bucked the national trend. I like to think that that was at least partly due to the clear ideas that we put to the electorate. I stood on an unashamedly British ticket, fighting against European federalism and stressing the need for and benefits of preserving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It has been said before, but it is my firm belief that the United Kingdom as a whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. Our strength has been built together. Thanks to the strength of the Union, and in no small part thanks to 18 years of Conservative government, the new Labour Government inherit a strong, prosperous, united nation.
It is impossible to separate the Bill from the wider issue of devolution, and impossible to separate devolution from the prospect of the United Kingdom breaking up. Devolution could usher in the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. I have no interest to declare as such, but I have something of a love affair with Scotland. It is incorrect to assume that English Members have no knowledge of Scotland. I have spent much time there and, indeed, worked there for a while. I have a great passion for Scotland. That is why I am so determined that it should remain part of the United Kingdom.
I see great danger for Scotland in moving down the devolutionary road. Scotland could be left to fend for itself as a small country in a hostile European Union. The hard-earned freedom that it would have gained from the United Kingdom would soon be snatched away by the federalist tendencies of that body. In such circumstances, what strength would Scotland have to fight against the federalist tendencies that it once wanted to throw off?
I am not convinced that the suggested great, demonstrable demand for devolution exists. Many people are making noises for it but they cannot necessarily claim to represent the views of the majority. I believe that many people in Scotland, as was acknowledged earlier, want to retain the status quo. They see no need for another layer of bureaucracy to be imposed upon them and certainly see no need for up to 3p in the pound more income tax to be levied on them.
Many people in Scotland will be against devolution. Scots who live in Scotland can vote against it but what about Scottish people who no longer live in Scotland?

They may live in another part of what they consider to be their country, the United Kingdom. We have learned from the Government this week that such people will have no say. For whatever reason, they chose to live in another part of the United Kingdom, but they should be given some say in what happens to the United Kingdom. Tearing Scotland away from the United Kingdom, which is the prospect that we face, is surely a matter for all of us. The policy of allowing only people who reside in Scotland to vote is inconsistent with existing law, which allows British people who have left our shores to continue to vote in our elections.
It has not escaped anyone's attention that the Conservative party has no representation in the House from Scotland or Wales, or, for that matter, from Northern Ireland. In general, although not this time, the Conservative party commands a majority of seats in England. It is in the interests of the Conservative party, especially with such a large hill to climb, to let the United Kingdom break up. In such circumstances, the Conservative party could enjoy almost perpetual government in England. I am not a member of a party that is interested in narrow electoral advantage. I belong to a party that believes in the wider interests of the United Kingdom. Those interests are not best served by going down the devolution route.
We are at risk from devolution and from so rapid an introduction of the Bill. People in Scotland may be persuaded to vote for devolution as a reaction against what they may have regarded as an English conspiracy to govern them. I believe in democracy; that is one reason why I joined the Conservative party. If a significant majority of Scottish people, clearly and consistently—those two words are important—showed that they wanted devolution, we would, of course, have to accept that verdict. The danger with such a rushed Bill is that if only a small majority of people in Scotland voted in favour, the Government would rush devolution through. That did not happen in 1978, when a small majority—32.9 per cent.—voted in favour, against 30.8 per cent. who voted against. The then Labour Government had insisted that at least 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote had to vote yes. The legislation fell, and so did the Labour Government shortly after. That is perhaps what worries the Government.
Given the precedents and the importance of the matter, is not it reasonable to ask the Government, before they set up a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, to be absolutely sure that such an arrangement is preferred by a sizeable number of Scottish people, and not by only a small majority on a very low turnout?
Much is at stake through the Bill, including 300 years of history, the economic strength that has been achieved and the future of the United Kingdom. The issues before us should not be hurried, nor should they be treated lightly.
I conclude my remarks by thanking the House for extending its courtesy to me.

Mr. John McAllion: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on speaking with great distinction. Indeed, he made a funny speech. I am sure that he will make important contributions in future in this place and I look forward to hearing them.
I congratulate especially those of my hon. Friends who made their maiden speeches this afternoon and evening. All of them spoke with great wit and with an obvious


pride and deep knowledge of their constituencies. Having sat in my place for the past four hours or so, it has become increasingly obvious that the new intake looks better than the old lags such as myself, and sounds better. We can look forward to a much better Parliament, I am sure, over the next five years.
I offer belated congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his appointment. They are belated congratulations only because this is the first opportunity that I have had to offer them. If my right hon. Friend were in the Chamber, he would probably be surprised to know that during the election campaign, in conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I predicted his appointment. My hon. Friend said that I was talking through a hole that was not in my head. I, however, was proved to be right. My right hon. Friend will be even more surprised to hear that I warmly welcome his appointment. Of all the realistic contenders for the job, I am sure that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends recognised that my right hon. Friend would be the best appointee. We wish him all the very best in future.
I commend the Government on the speed with which they have introduced the Bill. They have immediately honoured a manifesto commitment and, much more importantly, they have taken the first step towards re-establishing in my country, for the first time in nearly 300 years, a directly elected Scottish Parliament. I am greatly encouraged that an incoming Labour Government, after 18 long years of exile, should embark on a legislative measure that has long been a commitment of the Labour party. I am sure that the Bill will be a significant paving measure. We hope that that will be so and that we shall not witness the fate of the previous referendum introduced by a Labour Government.
The report of the commission on the conduct of referendums describes them as having an uncertain place within our system of government and as having no established rules accepted by the main political parties for their efficient and fair conduct. Anyone who has listened to the debate will acknowledge that the truth of that is obvious. That is illustrated by two examples, and I shall remind the House of them.
First, in the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should join the Common Market, each of the two umbrella groups formed at that time—Britain in Europe and the national referendum campaign—were given Government grants of £125,000, along with the costs of printing and distributing leaflets. By the time of the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution, however, there was no recognition for any umbrella group. Indeed, there was no public funding or support for either side. That demonstrates an inconsistency of approach.
Secondly, there is the example that was provided in 1979, when the infamous 40 per cent. rule was imposed on the yes side but not on the no side. In 1975 there was no such rule. Had there been a 50 per cent. threshold, as suggested this evening, the United Kingdom would never have joined the Common Market. Perhaps that is why the suggestion was put forward.
The inconsistency of approach towards referendums persists. Back in 1975, it was the avowed enemies of Scottish nationalism who were pressing for an additional question on independence to be included in the then referendum. There were those, like the late Norman

Buchan, who thought that by including that question the Scottish National party would be embarrassed, yet in this Parliament the Scottish National party is arguing that the option should be included in the referendum. That shows that we can never predict what will come up in Scottish politics. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) never thought that he would see the day when he would be following the constitutional footsteps of the late Norman Buchan. I do not know whether he or Jennie Buchan would be more worried about that. I suspect that Jennie would be more worried than the hon. Gentleman.
Historically, resort to referendums has not been founded on constitutional principles when set against the background of the House. Instead, referendums have been political expediency. They have represented the necessity of holding together a divided Government party. In 1975, and again in 1978–79, the then Labour Government, including their Back-Bench Members, were deeply divided over whether Britain should belong to the Common Market and whether there should be Scottish and Welsh devolution. Referendums were the means by which the then Labour Government sought to escape the divisions within their own ranks.
It was Lord Callaghan, a key player at that time, who described referendums as a rubber life raft into which one day the entire Labour party might have to climb. That just about summed up the experience of referendums in this place.
The question before us in this debate is whether the past experience of referendums is about to be repeated in ' this Parliament. The answer, I think, is that it is not. The circumstances now are very different. First, the present Government are not divided. A Scottish Parliament based on a Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme is a manifesto commitment that binds every member of the parliamentary Labour party. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is in his place to hear me say that. We are equally bound by our manifesto commitment to support both the referendums that are referred to in the Bill.
Secondly, the present Labour Government are not at the mercy of a Back-Bench rebellion. Given the majority that the Government enjoy they do not have to fear my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, whatever schemes he may dream up over the next few weeks. I hope that he recognises that reality.
That does not mean that there will not be opposition. There must and will be opposition in any democracy, whatever a Labour Government propose. The official Opposition will continue to oppose any change whatsoever because they have yet to realise why they suffered an electoral wipe-out in Scotland and Wales. They are making the same mistakes in this Parliament that they made in the previous Parliament, mistakes which led to their defeat in those two countries.
The Scottish National party will continue to press for the independence option to be included in the referendum. It is its right to do that, and in a sense it is its duty. In doing so, the Scottish National party will represent the views of 22 per cent. of the voters in the recent general election. The Liberal Democrats will continue legitimately to ask why there should be a referendum in any event. I am not unsympathetic to that line.
I think that everyone in his or her heart will recognise that in reality we shall be passing through the parliamentary motions. Such is the strength of the Labour Government that at the end of the day the referendum that will be held in Scotland this autumn will seek a double yes vote for a Scottish Parliament with tax-gathering powers.
As for the other place, if its unelected Members try to frustrate the elected Members of this place or deny them the right to place this proposed legislation on to the statute book, I for one will look forward to an early Christmas so that there can be an early settlement of accounts with that group of aristocratic turkeys.
I shall make one or two final points to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. For a long time Scottish politics have been dominated by the idea of cross-party consensus. It has widely been assumed in Scotland that no one party will be able to deliver for the Scottish people. That turned out to be wrong. The 1997 election proved that idea to be wrong. The Government now have a Commons majority of such a size that they can deliver that which they wish. As always in Scottish politics, however, there is a twist in the tail. The Labour Government are locked into the commitment of a referendum involving all the people in Scotland. In such a referendum, the Commons majority that the Labour Government enjoy will count for nothing.
At the election, Labour polled just 46.5 per cent. of the popular vote, not enough to carry the referendum that we shall hold in the autumn—and we are not even certain that all those Labour supporters will vote "yes, yes": a number of people in Dundee, for example, have told me that they will vote "no, yes", "yes, no" or "no, no", although they vote Labour in other elections. Labour Members must accept that we shall need the support of the other pro-home rule parties in Scotland if we are to carry the referendum that we are certain will be held later this year.
I was greatly encouraged by the speech that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), made at the launch of the cross-party campaign, "Forward Scotland" last Saturday in Edinburgh. In that speech, my hon. Friend reached out to all those outside the traditional Labour movement, asking them to come together in a national campaign that would win the referendum and lead to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament by a Labour Government.
The contrast between my hon. Friend's approach in 1997 and the approach taken by a Labour Government back in 1979 could not be more stark. At that time, the Scottish council of the Labour party sent an instruction to all constituency Labour party organisations in Scotland, warning them against collaboration with any body other than the Scottish Trades Union Congress or the Co-operative party. Indeed, the then Secretary of State for Scotland went on public record as saying, "Labour will not be soiling our hands by joining any umbrella 'yes' group." That was sectarian and wrong, and led to defeat in 1979. I am delighted that my hon. Friends the present Ministers have learnt from that defeat, and have rejected such an approach for the current Parliament. We need a

result from the referendum, and the only way in which we can secure the result that we need is by reaching out to other parties in the home rule movement.
The debate has been dominated by the dichotomy between those who think that setting up a Scottish Parliament will be the slippery slope leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and those who believe that such a Parliament will provide the means by which the integrity of the United Kingdom will be preserved. I take a different position from either of those groups: I want the Scottish Parliament proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention because I believe that it will be the best form of government for Scotland. I want it for its own sake, not because it will lead to one development or the other.
I do not accept that—as one of my hon. Friends argued earlier—this is a matter for the chattering classes. Many people throughout Scotland feel deeply that home rule should be returned to their country. My favourite memory is of an elderly delegate who spoke at the STUC conference in 1993. He told the conference, "I wanted a Scottish Parliament when I was 20, and I still want it. I am hungry for it, and I want it before they stuff me in a wooden box and throw it on the fire." I hope for the sake of that delegate that this Labour Government's proposals are not too late, and that the Government remember his example and do not waste any time in securing the referendum, taking the Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament through the House and bringing democracy back to Scotland.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in the debate, all the more so because I think that I was the last Conservative candidate to be selected before the general election. I found myself unexpectedly transported from the northern hills, on which I had been walking, to my constituency. I was selected within 48 hours, and plunged straight into an election campaign.
As I listened to some of the speeches that have been made this evening—particularly that of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)—there were moments when I suddenly wished that I could be back on the train from Euston to Corrour in order to spend a few more days out on the hills rather than being in the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has now left the Chamber; he spoke of fiery crosses to celebrate the arrival of a Scottish Parliament. I do not necessarily dissociate myself from his sentiments, but I hope that, if he is lighting fiery crosses on the tops of the mountains of Lochaber, he will check first to see that I am not sleeping out there in my bivvy bag.
It is my privilege to represent Beaconsfield, a constituency which, by any standards in the United Kingdom, is itself very privileged. It has high indices of wealth, although there are areas that are impoverished and in need of help. It also has an articulate community, low unemployment and other great advantages. Those advantages do not exist because of the waving of a magic wand. They are, in part, the result of the area's location to the west of London and its proximity to centres of communication, but they are due in large measure to the industry of its inhabitants and what they have made of their communities, which are set in a pleasant and gentle landscape.
The possibilities for personal development and opportunity in Beaconsfield have meant that it is highly developed, and is often subjected to environmental pressures that need to be addressed; but it remains an extraordinarily pleasant place in which to be. During the election campaign, I found that it had a strong sense of community and participation at every level of life, not just politics.
One of the features of the campaign in Beaconsfield was the frequency with which the issues that we are now discussing came up for discussion. That was because, far from being a place of little Englanders, Beaconsfield—because of its location—has attracted people from all over the United Kingdom and, indeed, from abroad, who have settled there to lead a British way of life.
What struck me especially forcefully during the campaign was the number of people in the old people's homes that I visited who came from Wales. They had come during the depression to take the jobs that were available in the factories on the Bath road. Their experience mirrors that of my family. I need only look at the example of my forebears to see the advantages that they gained from the Union, and to realise why I am so attached to it. Four hundred years ago, they lived a life in Roxburghshire which—although it may have been romanticised by Sir Walter Scott, who included the names of his neighbours, including my forebears, in the ballads when he recreated them—was, by all accounts, not very far removed from life in Bosnia in recent years. There was political disunity; neighbour was set against neighbour because there was fear and because there were huge uncertainties.
Those problems were cured by the Union, first by the Union of the Crowns and secondly by the union of the Parliaments in the 18th century. I need only look at the way in which, by the middle of the 18th century, my family had graduated from being cattle and sheep thieves to being prosperous farmers and at the frontiers of innovation in farming methods and the agricultural revolution that underpinned the country's prosperity to know the advantages that came to them from the Union.
However, it went beyond that. When, in the following century, younger sons left the farms, they had all the opportunities offered by travelling abroad and maintaining a British identity. That enabled them to prosper—never to lose contact with their roots and their cousins north of the border, but simply to reflect the fact, as 18th-century travellers from the south of England noticed, perhaps rather to their surprise, when they crossed the border from Northumberland to Roxburghshire, that the people on each side of the border were pretty much identical.
I do not wish—especially in the light of the issues that have to be debated—to issue a panegyric on the Union. I am the first to accept that constitutions can evolve; they are not fixed. A number of ideas and innovations have been produced, not just this evening but by Ministers during discussion of the Queen's Speech, some of which I consider quite exciting.
Perhaps I might give an example of where I suspect I might be at variance with some of the views of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, but it is a variance that I have held for a long time. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our national law is something that, although challenging, is nevertheless desirable if it can be done

without diminishing the sovereignty of Parliament. I believe that it can. I hope that I apply the same sorts of criteria to the proposals put forward today.
My concern is not with the principles of devolution in the sense that people may wish for it. From my frequent visits to Scotland, I am the first to accept the strength of feeling that exists there in respect of wanting devolved government. My concern is with the practicalities, and in particular with those that emerge out of the Bill that has been placed before the House tonight for its consideration. Let me try to develop that argument a little further.
I should like to take as my example the European convention on human rights. If it is to be incorporated into United Kingdom law—I do not know how it is proposed to be done—one of the articles the Government will wish to consider is article 3 in the first protocol. It states:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot under conditions which ensure the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature.
Which people? Which legislature? I cannot go back to my constituents in Beaconsfield and simply tell them that, by diktat, they will be placed in a position in two or three years, or during the next Parliament, where, effectively, decisions that they take as to the choice of legislature will mean that there will be people legislating over them who are not themselves subject to the legislation that is passed. That fundamental flaw cannot be ignored. There is only one way in which it could be got round.
To pick up on what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the West Lothian question, clearly it is possible in a democracy for any amount of anomalies to exist. Anomalies, if they are tolerated, are acceptable. Imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland had come before the House and said that as part of his proposals for the referendum he would be suggesting that people living in England should be entitled to pronounce on whether the decisions to set up a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly—I am particularly concerned about the Scottish Parliament—would naturally lead to their wanting major constitutional reforms of their own. If he had said that they should be allowed to express a view on the effective exclusion of Scottish Members from the decision-making process on English issues solely, that would be a first step towards clarifying what the different component parts of the United Kingdom want.
The issue is being fudged. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that those of us who believe in the Union and would, if given our choice, stand forward to say that the existing arrangements have done us well and we wish them to continue, will nevertheless also accept that as democrats and believers in the popular will there is no question of standing in the way of the people of Scotland or Wales in the decisions that they wish to take. There is a right, however, to review for ourselves in England and for the people of England if they need it, such arrangements as they want. If we do not do that, the durability which must be the desired result of any constitutional change, so that it lasts much longer than a Labour Government, will be lost. What we will end up with is endless bickering, endless difficulties and endless


conflict, which none of us who wish to maintain the Union and who believe in it in one form or another can possibly desire. That is why I cannot support the Bill; it has been put forward without those discussions having taken place and without the arguments being offered.
If, as one may expect, the Bill goes through after tomorrow, I hope that, nevertheless, the points that I have raised will not be ignored, but will be revived again and again during discussion of the issue. If they are, it may even be possible that we will emerge with something which is the product of the endeavour of Labour Members, but nevertheless finds itself endurable by—and acceptable to—far more people. If that does not happen, we face grave difficulties.
When it comes to the debate on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, I certainly intend to pursue how article 3 and a number of others appear to be at variance with the structures that the Government appear to want to foist on the different components of the United Kingdom. It is an interesting discussion which I look forward to pursuing.
There were a number of things that I wanted to say before I concluded. It is customary to pay tribute to one's predecessor. In my circumstances, my good fortune was the result of difficult decisions for him and great unhappiness. I am bound to say that, during all the time I campaigned in Beaconsfield, I was made aware by those from all parties, irrespective of how they voted in the election or in previous ones, how much they recognised his concern for local issues and his assiduousness as a local Member. I pay tribute to his work because over 15 years Tim Smith did a great deal.
There is one final matter that I should like to raise. Before I came to the House to make this speech I looked at what my predecessors had said in their maiden speeches. I was amused to discover that no one had made a maiden speech as Member for the area that I represent since 1945, because they had all been elected elsewhere first. When one comes to consider the state of the parties, I was greatly reassured that, in 1945, my predecessor in south Buckinghamshire, where I still enjoy a majority of 13,500, was Labour. We are not quite gone yet.
Unable to find much comfort from that, I went back to the maiden speech made by my father in 1964. It concerned a foreign affairs issue. He was concerned that the then Labour Government had imposed tariffs which the previous Government had said, according to international treaty, they would not impose. They were aimed at restricting the import of goods from the European Community. He believed passionately—and still believes passionately—in the underlying philosophical principles of co-operation among European states. The whole of that speech was laced with his objections to the creation of structures that interfered with harmony and intercourse between people.
What worries me about the Bill is that I fear that it will do exactly the same at United Kingdom level. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and why I cannot support the Government motion. However, if constructive suggestions are put forward as to how the problems associated with devolution for the totality of the United Kingdom can be

properly debated, I for one will be delighted to participate because the Union and the individuality in it is the absolute bedrock on which our freedom has been built.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—I believe that that was a maiden speech. I have lost count of the number of maiden speeches that there have been—I think that there must have been seven or eight, mostly from Scottish Members. It made me think of my maiden speech 10 years ago. When I made it, the words "zero-zero option" had only one meaning: the way in which the super-powers tried to bargain away different categories of nuclear missiles. The words zero-zero option have a new meaning: the pickle that the Tory party has got itself into in Scotland and Wales.
One of the purposes of the debate has perhaps been to help the Tory party to work out why it has got into this zero-zero option problem in Scotland and Wales. By and large, it is because the Tory party is resistant to change and simply refuses to re-examine itself and to find out whether it should—we see it again in the amendment that it has tabled tonight—still be resisting change. It reminds me of the little signs that I see on buses sometimes when I try to pay for a ticket, or of signs in vending machine arcades saying, "This machine gives no change." That is not a bad description of the Tory party's attitude on constitutional matters.
I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned what had happened with the Union of the Crown in 1603 and with the Act of Union in 1707 with Scotland. At the Welsh Conservative party conference only a few brief months ago—it seems a long time ago now—the former Prime Minister referred to 1,000 years of British history, revealing that perhaps he had not got much further than the 0-level stage in history, because there is no such thing. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred indirectly to the fact that the use of the term "Britain" and the use of the term "United Kingdom" do not go back more than 400 years. They go back in fact to the Union of the Crown with Scotland.
We in Wales would obviously tend to want to take our version of parliamentary history back another 60 or 70 years to the two Welsh Acts of Union of 1535 and 1542, but I do not want to get into 1,000 years or even 400 years of history. It is fair to say, however, that it has been interesting to see how, in most of the past 400 years, the relationship between England, given its overwhelming size within today's United Kingdom, and the three Celtic fringe countries or nations—whatever we want to call them—of Scotland, Wales and Ireland has continuously been redefined. It was originally done by way of expansion through the incorporation of Wales, the Union with Scotland and the Act of Union (Ireland) Act 1800, but since then it has tended the other way. That meant the granting of additional rights to Ireland, Scotland and Wales in different forms.
Since 1800, each of those additional rights has always been resisted by the Conservative party. It always gave out the same message and we are hearing it time and again tonight—any change to our constitution is a threat to the very existence of the Union. We have heard that such a change weakens and undermines the Union. "I am a passionate supporter of the Union," say Conservative


Members, as though it were a monopoly of the Conservative party. All they are saying is that they do not like this change.
The same arguments were used against the extension of the franchise in the 19th century and in the early part of this century. Why does the Conservative party resist constitutional change? One can understand its opposition to the extension of the franchise in the 19th century because the Tories did extremely well under the previous system. To some extent, in this century, they have done extremely well through being the party of no change. It has helped them. They would have had great difficulties getting majority democratic support in Wales and Scotland, so they thought, "The way to run it is not to grant any democratic extension of rights to Wales and Scotland."
I am afraid that the great Rubicon is upon the Conservative party, and it is beginning to divide on that issue. Certainly in Wales, we have seen at least the grandees of the Conservative party, some in the other place, some in the debate on the Queen's Speech only a few days ago, referring to the fact that a big rethink is now required by the Conservative party, and asking whether it should be resisting change and whether it was about time that it started to support the campaign through the referendum campaign and the subsequent legislation.
The official position of the Conservative party as a collective body, although that seems a bit of a misnomer at the moment, is still to resist all change. Clearly, however, there are forces splitting the Tory party into the anti-devolution, "We are still the machine that gives no change" faction and the other faction which, as we approach the beginning of the third millennium, asks what is wrong with allowing democratic devolution. Why are members of the latter faction saying that? Because they know, as we know, that, having given administrative devolution to Scotland in, I think, 1885 and to Wales in 1964 in the form of separate Secretaries and Departments of State, a crunch point is inevitably reached.
There has been administrative devolution in Scotland for more than 110 years and in Wales for 33 years. Administrative devolution poses certain problems because it means that something like the equivalent of vice-regal powers are gradually acquired. When the office of the Secretary of State for Wales was set up in 1964 under the incoming Labour Government of Harold Wilson, it was a great achievement for the Government. It started as quite a modest Ministry with some 250 civil servants and did not have a wide range of duties to perform.
Of course, almost every four or five years—or whatever the length of the Parliaments—in the 33 years since then, most of which have been under Conservative rule, at least one major issue of Government competence has been transferred from the classic British unitary state model, according to which everything is run by Departments which are held responsible at the Dispatch Box, to the alternative hybrid, the territorial mechanism according to which Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are by and large run. Thus, all the Home Ministries have gradually been transferred to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We are now left with this curious unitary state—yes, it is a unitary state, but one with strong elements of quasi-federal practice within it. It is still eventually responsible to this sovereign Parliament, but it is an odd system. It is not a terribly healthy one and certainly not

one that we should say is immutable because of its sheer beauty as drawn up by the brilliant Olympian minds of some constitutional lawyers. No one could say that about the hybrid system that we have now, under which England is run entirely by Departments while Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are run on a territorial basis but with some functions such as social security and some forms of transport—air and rail—still run on a UK-wide basis.
There are slightly varying degrees of devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Most notably, in Wales there has been no devolution of the Lord Chancellor's functions, Home Office functions or most transport functions.
There is thus an element of difficulty with the hybrid system, so I am very pleased that we now have a Bill that will enable the people of Wales either to veto the principles of the White Paper if they do not like them or give them the direct democratic mandate if they do. I hope that the Tory party realises that it has a choice as to whether to participate constructively or carry on as the entirely negative force that it is and has been for the past 20 years or so.
Of course, there was a faction within the Tory party whose members, some of whom are still fairly prominent but some of whom got knocked out at the election, were devolutionists in the mid-1970s vis-a-vis Scotland. However, they changed their minds when Margaret Thatcher took over the leadership of the party in the late 1970s. That was the price of preferment in the Tory party. Those who, like Malcolm Rifkind and the former Chancellor, had been devolutionists had to change their mind and become anti-devolutionists if they wanted a job in Margaret Thatcher's Administration.
At that stage, there was not a pro-devolution faction in Wales, but it would have followed as inevitably as the Secretary of State for Wales's job followed on from the original establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.
I accept what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said about tolerating anomalies within a system so long as there is the good will to make them workable. All parties have a duty to create that good will and the atmosphere for constructive debate and interchange because we shall never get rid of those anomalies. We will never establish a perfect unitary state or attain a federal system devised by teams of constitutional lawyers—as primarily British constitutional lawyers did for the Federal Republic of Germany in the period leading up to its establishment in 1949. That will not happen, because it is not the British way. The British way is to move bit by bit, after the argy-bargy and knockabout of a general election, and after even more argy-bargy and knockabout across the Floors of this House and the other place—which, probably in the history of the world, is the greatest constitutional anomaly of all. Until now the other place has been accepted, although some changes to it may be made. Today, however, we are not debating that issue.
If we are to talk about anomalies, we must keep a sense of proportion about the different types of anomaly in the British constitution. We want—with a long, hot summer ahead of us—genuine, democratic campaigning, and we want the Tory parties to participate in it. We want them to do so, however, in a way in which they do not try to be the hold-outs, trying to claim that they are the last people who love and feel passion for the Union.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said earlier in the debate that Conservatives are the patriots and that, collectively, they are the ones who distinguish between patriotism and parochialism. He comes from Llanelli and I come from Cardiff, and we Taffs have to stick together, but I should tell him that the implication of his statement—that Labour Members are not patriotic, because we believe in introducing democratic devolution in areas that, so far, have been only administratively devolved—will be deeply resented. He needs to rethink that attitude.
I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, because of his long period in Folkestone, has been affected more deeply than me by English folk culture. Indeed, I have been told that his favourite folk-song is, "As I was going to Widdecombe fair".
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other Conservative Members really love the Union, love waving the Union flag and believe that our governmental system is the strongest in the world, why do they treat the Union as a flower so fragile that even the slightest change to it will smash it—like the finest Dresden china—to smithereens? Those two beliefs cannot be held simultaneously. If one is a patriot and thinks that the British constitution is strong, the British constitution should easily be able to withstand devolution and referendums—for which today's debate is paving the way.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate my three hon. Friends—they form not a Holy Trinity, but certainly a trinity—who made their maiden speeches in this debate. They spoke with confidence and clarity, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing more from them. I also congratulate the Labour Members who made their maiden speeches today. They all spoke with great fluency, and I hope that we shall hear more from them, too.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—in his criticisms of the Conservative party, or of what is left of it in the House and in the United Kingdom—rather reminded me of the sergeant-major who informed conscripts into the armed forces that, if they could not take the joke, they should not have joined up.
I do not think that the result of the general election was a joke, however, because I have been in the Chamber and I have listened to the debate. I have seen the size of the Labour majority—about which I do not complain unduly—and I have to accept it as a fact of political life. I have to exist as a Conservative Member in that new universe: which means that the Bill will receive its Second Reading; that it will pass, probably unamended, its Committee stage; that it will be sent to the other place; that it will return, again probably unamended, from the other place; and that, before long, it will receive Royal Assent. That is a political fact of life with which I must live.
The current facts of political life do not, however, mean that I should not contribute to the debate or that Conservative Members should not be heard. Our speeches may not change anything. Nevertheless, our job is to criticise and to oppose constructively. I hope that we will be listened to in that spirit.
The Secretary of State for Scotland accused me of being "horribly familiar". I am not quite sure whether he was criticising me for calling him "Donald", or for calling Tony "Tony", or whether he was saying that he recognised me from the previous Parliament. Whichever it was, I do not want to be rude to him, because I do not think that he was being rude to me. It would be very silly for a member of the Bar to be rude to a solicitor. All I wish the right hon. Gentleman to do is to retire soon and to spend more time with his practice so that he can benefit mine. He made a good speech and, if I may say so without ruining his reputation, he is a good man. If we have to have a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, we could not have a better one than him.
I want to make three brief points about the Bill which may come up for discussion later in Committee. The first relates to the composition of the electorate in the referendum which is dealt with in clauses 1(3) and 2(3), the first dealing with Scotland and the second with Wales. Although I can accept the administrative convenience of translating the local government electorate into the referendum electorate, it is puzzling that that will allow non-United Kingdom citizens—non-Welshmen and non-Scotsmen—to vote on what will be a massive change in the government of the United Kingdom.
The local government electors include European Union citizens. I have no particular problem about that, because if people happen to be European Union citizens who live in the borough of such and such and pay the local council tax, they should surely be entitled to express a view politically about their local government. Where we are deciding the future, however, not just of a local government area but of the future governance of Scotland and Wales, it is surely right that only United Kingdom citizens who are resident in those countries should vote in this great thing.
I go further. Is it not all the more peculiar that European Union citizens who are not United Kingdom citizens should be able to vote in the referendums in Scotland and in Wales when United Kingdom citizens who happen to be English residents are disfranchised, despite the fact that the referendums and the devolution Bills which will follow from them will gravely affect the United Kingdom, of which my constituency is a part just as much as Welsh and Scottish constituencies are? That is a point for note now and, I hope, for greater discussion later.
I make that point not out of xenophobia, but for the reasons I expressed earlier. I look at the matter in terms of family law. Both parties to a trial separation or to a divorce—the husband and the wife—have a say in the matter. Looking at the plans for the future of the United Kingdom, it seems that only the departing parties—I know that there are discussions about whether the break-up of the Union will result from the Government's plans—will be involved. I believe that the English and those resident in England have as much right to express a view in the referendum as the Scots and the Welsh do.
My second point concerns the date. It is not yet clear—it may become clear later today or tomorrow—whether the Scottish referendum will be held earlier than the Welsh referendum. It seems a more economic use of everybody's time and possibly cheaper to hold both referendums on the same day. My suspicion—I do not know whether any Welsh Members will be able to confirm it—is that there is less enthusiasm in Wales for an Assembly than there is in Scotland for a Scots


Parliament. It may be—perhaps I am being overly suspicious—that the Government think that if the referendum result in Scotland is announced two, three, or four weeks ahead of the Welsh referendum, the impetus from that will flow across to the benefit of the Government's case in Wales. If the case for a separate Welsh Assembly and a separate Scots Parliament is good, we might as well have the argument on one day and have the result quickly and efficiently.
My third point relates to clause 4—not clause IV of fond memory for the new Labour party, but clause 4 of the Bill. It is—I freely admit it—exactly the same as clause 4 in the Referendum Act 1975 and clause 10 in the Wales Act 1978 and the Scotland Act 1978. It prevents courts from entertaining
any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by a Chief Counting Officer".
There will be no legal challenge to the result. That is fair enough, but what happens if the result is close or there is evidence—as there was at the recent general election—that some of the ballot papers have been improperly marked or stamped or there is some other genuine point that could be argued?
When there is a landslide result, there is clearly no point in fussing because the margin of error does not apply, but if there is a narrow results is it right for the courts to be blocked off to those with a genuine complaint? Perhaps the Attorney-General in England and Wales and the Lord Advocate in Scotland should act as a sieve to sift out frivolous applications. Bearing in mind the difficulties of establishing locus and whether it should be open only to an individual or open to groups of interested parties to raise a challenge, it might be worth while considering adding a Law Officer's function to allow legal challenges in certain circumstances.
That relates to the threshold question which has been much debated this evening. I do not want to delay the House by dealing with it further. No doubt the arguments will be addressed in Committee. Considering the result of the election, the Government should have no fears about the outcome of their proposed referendums. If they have any confidence in their case, they have nothing to fear from a threshold. If there is a low turnout—as is possible—and a modest majority in favour of or against the proposals, the perceived legitimacy of the result will be open to question. Those fears will be done away with if a threshold is included.
Finally, I congratulate the Government on the fact that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House. That is a good move. I hope that that translates to a willingness for the Committee stage of the devolution Bills later in the year to be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate you on your new post, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches. I am sure that some of my new hon. Friends will go on to better things. I also enjoyed the confidence with which hon. Members from other parties have made their speeches. I particularly liked the comments of my old friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), with whom I worked in

the Lothian region. I do not think that he should lose any of his attitudes to this place. He has it summed up perfectly. I have not lost my attitudes either.
I have waited a long time to speak today, but I have waited a long time to speak on this issue. I am delighted that the Gracious Speech mentioned the referendum. I am also delighted to congratulate the Scottish people on getting rid of the colonial rule that we have had from St. Andrew's house. It was nothing more than people who knew better than the natives. The natives have now told them what they really think of them.
We are not quite out of the woods yet. Some hon. Members seem to be hair splitting with a laser beam, demonstrating illogical political logic and wallowing in a quagmire of red tape like big political hippos—and they love it. They enjoy tearing this good idea to bits, hiding behind the defence of being Unionists, or some other thing. Within the movement for the devolution that Scotland and Wales want are people who want the Union to remain intact—not for it to remain as it is, but for the fundamentals of being in the Union to remain intact. If they do not agree with us, the demands will continue.
The people of Scotland feel that devolution is long overdue. I have been arguing for it for many long years—as a young miner and when I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland. On one occasion, we were sabotaged by a Mr. Cunningham. As far as I am concerned, he is persona non grata in Scotland. I hope that he never goes there again. The NUM kept the flame of freedom and democracy alight even when the rest of the Labour movement did not accept our proposals. Time and again, resolution after resolution, year in year out, we put them to Labour party conferences and to the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
The establishment of the Scottish Constitutional Convention was a great breakthrough. The STUC first attempted it in a very crude form by inviting people to discussions. Conservative Members and representatives of the Confederation of British Industry were among those who came to talk about how we could get the Scottish people what they wanted—a Parliament in Edinburgh. At the time, I was surprised when some people walked away, but now we have a convention that comprises an amalgamation of political parties, the trade union movement, the Churches and other interests. Many people kept alive their enthusiasm for a Scottish Parliament and were not too popular when they raised the matter time and again. Now we are firmly on the threshold of putting the matter to the people of Scotland and Wales.
I should like to see a Parliament in Edinburgh. I know that there are arguments about how it could be financed. There certainly would have been savings had we had a Parliament in Edinburgh. We definitely would not have had the poll tax and we undoubtedly would not have thrown away millions of pounds building a private hospital in Clydebank. Nor would we have all the quangos that were created to fuel the nepotism in the Conservative party in Scotland. We would have done away with all that and produced savings.
It has been said that a Scottish Parliament would require more civil servants. My comrade and hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that we were already devolving departmentally. There is already an army of civil servants in Scotland—in Dover house, St. Andrew's house and a brand new place called the


Quay, which is on the Forth at Leith. I do not know whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been there yet, but I understand that it is quite pukka. The civil servants are already in situ; it is just a matter of organising them better and getting them involved.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No way. I sat here for hours listening. Had the hon. Gentleman done the same, I would have let him intervene.
A Scottish Parliament is most desirable. I support the proposed constitutional reforms. I have also always been in favour of a change in the system of voting. I should like to see new procedures, timetables and ways of conducting business in Edinburgh. I welcome the exciting prospect of creating a new forum in Edinburgh and having it run in a reasonable way, and, with all due respect to this place, without its archaic and backward procedures. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West about that.
I remember a story, which is rather funny but contains a lesson. Back in 1974, the Monktonhall branch of the NUM held a meeting to analyse what had happened in the strike. A lot of criticism was expressed until the delegate said, "Stop! I have had enough. Yes, we made mistakes in the strike, but they were correct mistakes."
Hon. Members should not think that the House has not, through the democratic process, made some howlers and real clangers in the past. We, the Scottish people and the Welsh people, will make the mistakes—but they will be correct mistakes. I think that hon. Members know what I mean. We will not have colonial officers telling us that decisions will hurt us, they know better than us and eventually we will benefit. Those who said that they knew better than we did are getting their P45s—the lot of them. The people of Scotland know better; they are very bright and intelligent people who are not blinkered.
I say to the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, "Come and join us. You do not have to have the formula for Scotland, Wales or anywhere else. Devolve, so that democracy goes to the people and the people are involved." The people responsible will have more time and be more accountable. Those who make the decisions will not be cloistered in some room down in London, part of some big Department; they will be up front in an accessible Parliament where they can report to the people. That is what we are looking for in Scotland and that is what we will get.
I hope that people realise that, if any party or any individual in a party does not take part in the campaign for a meaningful result in the referendum, they will stand on trial. They know what will happen to them. The people of Scotland will do to them exactly what they did to the Conservatives.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I should first congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches before me in this debate and say how honoured I am to make mine.
As some hon. Members may have noticed, my name is not Welsh. In fact, it is not even British; it is Estonian. Both my parents left Estonia at about the time of the

second world war because of the oppression that threatened their lives. Naturally enough, they met and moved to Northern Ireland, as Estonians seem to do. I was born in Northern Ireland and that is why I sound Northern Irish rather than Estonian.
While discussing the campaign in Montgomeryshire, my agent wistfully suggested that I should change my name to Alex Carlile so that we would not have to reprint the posters. I turned down his suggestion, but over the past months I have discovered that, on the west side of my constituency, they have started calling me Llembit ap Opik. So, slowly, I am becoming Welsh.
By a remarkable coincidence, my name turns out to be an anagram of, "I like to b MP." I can only congratulate my parents on realising my future career 32 years ago. I shall be wearing my Palace of Westminster pass for another few weeks to give hon. Members an even chance of getting my name right in the Strangers Bar.
Among the political giants I follow are names such as David Davies, Clement Davies, Emlyn Hooson and, of course, my immediate predecessor, the famous and great Alex Carlile. The debt that I owe Alex Carlile cannot be put into words. It was a source of sadness to the constituency that his personal circumstances caused him to stand down, although I am sure that putting his family first was the right decision. He leaves a tremendous legacy. I hope that people across not only Montgomeryshire but the House, Britain and Northern Ireland recognise the tremendous contribution to Parliament that he has made over the past 14 years.
The same old Alex made one last appearance on Sky Television on election night. My result came in and the commentator turned to Alex and said, "So, Mr. Carlile, the Liberal Democrats hold your seat with an increased majority." He wasted no time in responding, "Yes, but the total vote has gone down!" Good old Alex. I thank him sincerely for all the help that he has given me and the Liberal Democrats over the years.
I support and applaud the proposal to have a referendum. While we may haggle about the details, no democrat—whether Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, Labour or Conservative—can oppose the common sense of giving a nation the right to decide its future. The Labour proposals could be described as timid, but they are a start and it would be churlish for a political party to oppose them simply because they do not go far enough. I shall campaign for a yes vote in the referendum, along with other Liberal Democrats.
The benefits of a devolved Assembly are legion. It would see an end to the quango culture that threatens so much of what used to be under democratic control only 10 to 15 years ago. For example, the very survival of the hospitals in the Dyfed Powys area may depend on the speedy completion of the referendum; there is a sense that the quangos can no longer make crucial decisions about the future of people's health, without understanding what the people of Wales want.
A devolved Assembly will assist the future economic regeneration of Wales. The Development Board for Rural Wales has done sterling work, especially in mid-Wales, to regenerate the economy. A devolved Assembly or Sennedd could make a tremendous contribution to revitalising Wales through such agencies. It could make a start on operating more sensibly parts of the health service, such as the ambulance service. I shall not go into


details tonight, but the ambulance service has been appallingly mismanaged recently. One classic example is the famous one-person ambulance team, which prompts the obvious question, "Who carries the other end of the stretcher?" The Shropshire Star has run a petition to save the ailing ambulance service in the Powys area, and in two weeks it has amassed 6,500 signatures.
Devolution would bring something else that cannot be measured in numbers—a sense of responsibility. That must be worth fighting for. As everyone who has been to Wales knows, the people have a tremendous warmth and Montgomeryshire is at the heart of that feeling. Many lament the political demise of Montgomeryshire and its merger into Powys, but the spirit remains. From Llanidloes to Llanfyllin, from Welshpool and Newtown to Machynlleth, a character pervades the landscape. It is in the rocks. The County Times, the local paper, is more of a commentary on daily life: it is part of the community. The schools do not teach only knowledge: they teach an outlook. We nurture the River Severn to the point at which it is foolish enough to flow into England. The wages may be low but people work hard, on the land, in the shops and in the factories.
The Welsh language, despite all the efforts of previous Governments to squeeze it out of existence, is coming back. One in four people in my constituency speak it. I am learning it slowly, because I believe that if we are serious about a national identity, we have to lead from the front and prove that we mean it. I hope that in the months and years ahead, my Welsh will improve in its fluency.
The spirit of adventure in my constituency is embodied by Operation Dragonfire, about which the House will hear much more in the months to come. It is a project to build the first amateur rocket to be sent into space. The idea was hatched in the Sam inn with the landlord, Bertie, on one especially spirited evening. Whether or not it works, we are having some tremendous evenings planning the project.
We have had problems in Montgomeryshire, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the crushing drop in beef and lamb prices because of the strength of the pound, low incomes, and the huge decline in public transport. The Welsh people, however, also have a self-belief. They believe that they have the right to make decisions about how they are governed, and the freedom to enjoy all the things that epitomise so distinctively life in rural Wales. There is a phrase used in mid-Wales that sums all that up: "mwynder Maldwyn," or "the gentleness of Maldwyn"—that is, of Montgomeryshire.
Our job is not simply to worship the constituencies that we represent. Our loyalty must lie not only with the people who elected us, but with the sense of justice that built the institution in which we stand today. We have a chance to honour that well, and to do so differently from the way in which things have been done in recent times.
The past of the Commons is chequered with great alliances and with appalling discord. I believe that we are now emerging from one of those periods of discord—a period marked by an extraordinary sense of self-doubt, which caused an unnatural aggressiveness on the part of the recently departed Government. When the Conservative leadership election is over, and muscle flexing is replaced by the exercise of the mind, perhaps there will even be grounds to hope for a softening of the Tory line.
We could replace the politics of confrontation with the politics of reform, through consensus and constructive opposition. The political environment that Wales, and Britain as a whole, so desperately need, is within our grasp. Our actions can restore public faith—the faith of the public in the Strangers Gallery and of those who view us at home—simply by starting to work on the merits of the issues, rather than always opposing simply because that is what we have done in the past.
It seems to me that there are some who feel more comfortable with the theatre of political war than in the assembly of co-operation—but that does not include me. My family fled tyranny in Estonia. They came to the United Kingdom for sanctuary, because it had a democratic system—a system that literally saved their lives. I am here because this democratic institution, faults and all, is truly great among the democracies of the world. The greatest reform needs to happen to this institution. The Bill will be able to change not only the details in Wales but the way in which we take part in politics in general.
I hope to play my part in the referendum, to campaign for a yes in Wales and to make a personal contribution to the great reform before us. So I return to where I started. Perhaps other Estonians, remembering the sanctuary that they, too, found, will watch my contribution and, I hope, feel that in some small way I am giving something back to the nation that gave them so much.
Perhaps above all else, I hope that as the people of Montgomeryshire and the rest of Wales watch us, not only tonight but in the months to come, they will observe a Parliament that is finally giving something back to Wales—the right to choose. If they do, and if we have the courage of our convictions, 1997 may turn out to be a vintage year—the year when the great reforms finally started, and we finally had the courage to start building a fairer Wales.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I begin my maiden speech by praising the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I do not know how eloquent he is in Welsh, but he showed incredible eloquence in English, and lucidity, too. That is especially remarkable at this time in the evening, which imposes quite a strain on those of us who have waited this long to speak.
I praise, too, the general standard of maiden speeches that have been made in the debate. They have been outstanding. Perhaps I may pay a particular tribute to my neighbour both on this Bench and in constituency terms, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for her outstanding speech.
As the new constituency of Aberdeen, North takes in more than half the old constituency that bore that name, I claim the privilege of paying a tribute to my friend Robert Hughes. He was a hard act, although an outstanding example, to follow. He was a great constituency Member, who worked hard for his constituents both individually and collectively, as well as for Aberdeen and for north-east Scotland in general, and he won great respect both locally and nationally, across party boundaries.
In the best traditions of Members of Parliament, Robert Hughes combined being a good constituency Member with fighting for justice, freedom and peace both at home


and abroad. He worked diligently, whether he was on the Front or the Back Benches. During his long career he spent time on both. Indeed, at one point my predecessor put his personal convictions before his personal preferment, which was a sign of great integrity—the sort of integrity that the public expect us to restore to public life in the House.
It is right to pay tribute to Bob Hughes for what he did in support of a cause that was at one time just as unpopular with some people as some of the causes for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has campaigned.
During the course of recent world history, there have been two political miracles. One is the events that we associate with Mikhail Gorbachev, the other is those that we associate with Nelson Mandela. When President Mandela made his state visit to this country, it was notable that he paid particular tribute to the part played by Bob Hughes in the abolition of apartheid. In addition, many people were deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the tribute that he paid to Bob Hughes for that work at the last Labour party conference.
When Bob Hughes made his maiden speech in 1970, he spoke about the problem of worker migration from Aberdeen. I need hardly say that that problem was reversed because of the oil industry, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. There are still problems in my constituency, such as youth unemployment, which will definitely benefit from the Government's job creation schemes. We must not forget that the traditional industries in my constituency, particularly the food processing industry, remain important. I believe that the food standards agency can play an important part in restoring that industry, and I praise the work that has been done by Professor Philip James and the Rowatt research institute in building up the agency. I hope that it will have a long-standing involvement in the future.
The oil industry has led to the building up of my constituency, which is continuing to grow. Eighty years ago, the present sites of many of the housing estates in my constituency were not just green-field sites—they were green fields. In my constituency, the Bridge of Don—perhaps more than any other area—has become the fastest-growing suburb and has gone beyond the level of facilities available to support it. A very exciting experiment has taken place in the Bridge of Don, where the council, the community council and the local community have worked with the relevant agencies to try to plan to solve local problems. I mention that in the context of this debate because the Government's plans will try to ensure that we have proper participatory democracy with proper subsidiarity at all levels, from international to community level.
As Bob Hughes's 27 years of service were preceded by 25 years' service by Hector Hughes, I am aware that I am breaking more than half a century of surname tradition. However, I would claim that I am not the first Savidge to come to the Westminster Parliament—although I should stress, in the non-controversial spirit of a maiden speech, that I am not referring to the public perception of Prime Minister's Question Time until this afternoon's reforms. I am half English and half Scots, and I am thinking back to the 1400s and to a Parliament—which met sometimes in

Westminster and sometimes elsewhere—in which I believe a certain Sir Arnold Savidge held the position of Speaker on at least two and possibly three occasions.
I understand that the Government of the time had three main features—the setting up of independent financial scrutiny; the pursuit of what might be called a one-nation policy—before Disraeli, let alone the present Government; and the apparent total harmony between the House of Lords and the House of Commons on policy. I should like to commend to the other place that in considering this Bill and those that we expect to come forward for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, it should follow that excellent example.
All parties should now be working together on this issue. Surely it should not now be a matter of controversy. All Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament were elected on manifestos that said that there should be Parliaments in Scotland and Wales. I urge not just the Liberal Democrats but the nationalists to join us in fighting for a yes, yes vote in the referendums, and then to work constructively with us in setting up the Parliament. I shall go further and say to the rump of the Tory party that now that the people of Scotland have said to it what Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament:
In the name of God, go!
is it not time for Conservatives to think about Cromwell's other advice and
think it possible you may be mistaken."?
Is it not possibly time for whoever is elected by the remnants of the English Tories as their leader—I see one contender in the Chamber—to consider that a Scottish Parliament with proportional representation could look after the interests of minority, fringe parties?
In all seriousness, I must make an appeal. Let all parties and the other place work together with us in consensus and consultation, so that we can set up a Parliament that can have the confidence and consent of the people of Scotland—government of the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland, by the people of Scotland.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am very pleased to be at the Dispatch Box in a Labour Government. The enjoyment of victory in one's seat is one thing; the enjoyment of having a Labour Government is another, but it is an honour, a privilege and an enormous responsibility to be at the Dispatch Box.
Many hon. Members have said tonight that they seem to be the custodians of the principles and procedures of the House. Those views are shared by every hon. Member. The Government want to ensure that debates are properly scrutinised and have the maximum participation of every part of the House. That should be the case when we are dealing with serious constitutional issues.
We have experienced some wonderful maiden speeches in the first day of this two-day debate—10 at the last count, I think. I must put on record my enjoyment of listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Edinburgh,


West (Mr. Gorrie), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark), the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge).
The quality of the contributions was of a high order. If that progresses through our debates, the House will be enriched as a consequence of the new intake. In case I am charged with being too loyal to the new recruits and less favourable to existing Members, there were also many excellent contributions from the latter on both sides of the House.
In considering this constitutional issue, Conservative Members raised two or three important points about the Union—the idea of thresholds, of pre or post-legislative referendums and whether there should be a United Kingdom electorate. I will want to deal with the latter two, but it is important to make a forcible point at the start. Our measure—the Bill, followed by a Scottish Bill and a Welsh Bill—will mean the strengthening of the Union. This is not an attempt to undermine it. Indeed, it is an opportunity to ensure that the Union is strengthened.
If the election result showed anything in Wales and in Scotland, it was that the status quo was not acknowledged or supported by the people who used their votes in the ballot. Conservative Members should appreciate that hard, crushing reality. People vote for different parties for a variety of different reasons, of course, but it would be foolish in the extreme if any hon. Member decided to ignore the realities in Scotland and Wales.
Furthermore, as regards the Scottish dimension, it is important to listen to Scottish Conservatives. There is a distinct gap between contributions to the debates in this House and what is happening throughout Scotland. In many parts of the Conservative party, there is enormous scepticism. In some parts of the Conservative party in Scotland, there is downright opposition, but party members want to engage in the debate. This is an instructive point. Conservative Members will want to acknowledge that and to contribute. The Government and Conservatives in Scotland who are involved in the debate want to strengthen the Union.
I hope that this evening we have heard many appeals to rise above party so that constitutional issues can be considered on their merits. I fully support that idea.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No—for the simple reason that many hon. Members have sat through the whole of this debate and the hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Swayne: I was watching it on television.

Mr. McLeish: That is not an excuse for not being in the Chamber.
Thresholds were referred to earlier and seem to be gaining favour with Conservative Members. After the referendums, the Government will act in accordance with the results, but we are seeking the electorate's view of our proposals in principle. Unlike in 1979, the referendums are not technical measures. Any threshold, other than a simple majority, would be arbitrary and unfair on the

people of Scotland and Wales. We want to hear the views of those people, and a simple majority vote will send a clear enough message to us.
Fancy franchises, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, are not needed. Their only purpose would be to frustrate the democratic will of the people. Conservative Members should think long and hard about that.
There is a sense of history in the making in Scotland and, I hope, in the House. There is a sense of occasion as we look towards getting into the details of major constitutional change after the general election of 1 May. There is a sense of anticipation as we enter, in my judgment, the most exciting period in Scottish and Welsh politics for 50 years.
We are embarking on a journey that will end with the opening of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales. Surely we are embracing this evening the sense of history and passion that has driven home rule discussions throughout this century.
There is a mood for change, and momentum is building up; for far too long in Scotland and Wales confidence has been undermined by the Conservatives, expectations have been diminished, horizons narrowed and ambitions frustrated. After 50 years of debate in the United Kingdom that has ebbed and flowed in passion, importance and parliamentary time allotted, we have a unique opportunity to move forward and decide our future.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend mentioned both history and details. I warn him, in the friendliest way possible, that in all the discussion the devil is often in the detail. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the civil service. I am not asking for an immediate answer, but the position of the civil service has to be sorted out: is it responsible to a Scottish Parliament; is it part of the British civil service; or is the United Kingdom civil service to be broken up? There are endless problems of that kind.

Mr. McLeish: I respect my hon. Friend's comments. There will be challenges, as well as the devil, in the detail. We will have published a detailed White Paper before the summer recess that will be the basis for our discussions and for those in Scotland.
It is important to press ahead with the Bill, which will give the people of Scotland and Wales the opportunity to voice their views on our proposals for devolution. We should re-emphasise the principle of asking the people concerned to vote on both propositions in Scotland and on the one proposition in Wales. It is a chance to choose: surely hon. Members would not want to deny the electorates in both those countries that opportunity.
Earlier this month, the people of the United Kingdom elected a Government committed to introducing a comprehensive programme for constitutional renewal. Elements of the programme included the incorporation into UK law of the European convention on human rights; the introduction of a freedom of information Bill; the reform of the House of Lords; and the modernisation of the procedures of the House of Commons.
Taken together, that adds up to the most wide-ranging programme for constitutional reform that has been envisaged in modern times. Its purpose is to modernise the institutions of government to meet the needs of the people and the demands of the 2Ist century.
At the heart of this programme, and its vanguard, are our plans for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Tomorrow, my Welsh colleagues will go into more detail about the Welsh aspects of the legislation. The people of Scotland have made it abundantly clear, not just in the general election earlier this month but over the preceding decade, that they want more control over their own affairs and to remain within the United Kingdom. Our plans to establish a Scottish Parliament with law-making powers, firmly based on the agreement reached in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, will achieve that.
We have not been slow to put words into action. I am grateful for the allusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to that. Two weeks after coming into office, we have already taken the first steps towards meeting our manifesto commitment on a Scottish Parliament. Last Thursday saw the introduction into this House of legislation to allow the people of Scotland to vote in a referendum on our proposals, which will be set out in a White Paper that will be published well ahead of the referendum, and in any case before the House rises. We expect the referendum to be held by early autumn. On the basis of what we expect to be a resounding popular endorsement of our plans, we shall then bring forward legislation to create the Scottish Parliament.
There will, of course, be a full opportunity for Parliament to debate our proposals during the passage of the main devolution Bill. Once that legislation is enacted, we shall immediately set in hand the necessary preparations to establish a Scottish Parliament.
Scotland therefore now stands on the threshold. Too long have the people of Scotland waited for their wish for a greater say in their own affairs to be realised. We are about to take another step in what has been a historic journey in the government of Scotland. That journey started almost 300 years ago.
The Acts of Union of 1707 abolished the Scottish and English Parliaments and established in their place a Parliament of Great Britain. It was an incorporating union, but the Acts none the less allowed Scotland to retain many of its distinctive features. The position of the Scottish established Church, the continuing autonomy of Scots law and our legal system, the organisation of local government, and our distinctive education system were maintained.
Since the Acts of Union, Scottish autonomy within the Union has continued to develop. During the second half of the 19th century, interest in constitutional change was stimulated by debate on home rule for Ireland. In 1885, the Secretaryship for Scotland and the Scottish Office were established, and the following year saw the establishment of the Scottish Home Rule Association, with the object of winning a measure of devolution for Scotland. Scottish home rule Bills were introduced in Parliament in the 1920s, and in 1926 the Scottish Secretary became a full Secretary of State.
The 1920s and 1930s saw an upsurge in popular demand for home rule in Scotland, and in 1942 the Scottish Union, later renamed the Scottish Convention, was formed. The convention secured a wide measure of popular support through a covenant, which committed its signatories to do everything in their power
to secure for Scotland a Parliament with adequate legislative authority in Scotland's affairs".

In a short space of time, about half the adult population of Scotland signed the document, and the people's views were an important element in the appointment in 1952 of the royal commission on scottish affairs.
As a further response to the home rule movement in the first half of the century, in 1941 the then Secretary of State allowed meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to be held in Scotland. At the same time various Scottish Departments were established and in this century there has been a steady transfer of functions to the Scottish Office.
It is important to have set out the evolution of the devolution of power and responsibility to Scotland. Looked at incrementally, we are building on a tremendous sense of history, of tradition and of improving the government of Scotland. We have to view further progress in that context.

Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the Minister of State for going over the history. He mentioned the evolution of devolution. Does he remember a cartoon by Ewan Bain, a famous Scottish cartoonist, suggesting that the difference between the two concepts was that devolution took longer?

Mr. McLeish: It may have taken longer but the important historical reality is that we are about to deliver a Scottish Parliament, and my colleagues a Welsh Assembly.
All those developments, and more, have taken place in the context of a strengthening Scottish autonomy within the Union. I reinforce that point because Conservative Members made so many comments about the future of the Union.
We now stand ready to take another step in this unfinished journey. We are committed to maintaining the Union and committed to delivering devolution to the people of Scotland, and we shall not fail them. Our plan of action, which I have just spelt out, will deliver a robust, effective and durable Parliament quickly and effectively. We are working hard to put together the terms of our White Paper, which will set out plans for the Parliament. We have the benefit of the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which has helped to produce cross-party consensus, which is so vital. There is consensus on the case for change and on the basis on which change should be made. Our proposals will be firmly based on that consensus.
The terms of the White Paper will take into account contributions that have been made over the past few months and, indeed, years, by a wide range of academics, constitutional specialists and other interested parties. We are listening and learning against the background of comments made in the House and elsewhere. If we are to take the matter seriously, we must recognise what others are saying about the passage of the Bill. When we reach the substantive Scotland Bill, the same process and courtesies will be extended.
To supplement the listening-and-learning process, I shall be holding a series of further meetings with key players such as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the constitution unit, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Confederation of British Industry, along with many other similar bodies. I am keen to listen to their views on how we should firm up our proposals.
We are confident that, given the extent of the dialogue that has already taken place and will take place over the next few weeks and months, our proposals will reflect and deliver the ambitions of the people of Scotland for a Parliament of their own. The publication of our White Paper will take the debate on our proposals for devolution from the minds of the few into the hearts of the many. That is an important step that the House can take by passing referendum legislation following a national campaign.
We have, of course, been here before, as we have been constantly reminded this evening by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the 1970s, the Labour Government struggled to legislate for a Scottish Assembly, but—essentially because of that Government's lack of a working majority in the House—the process was protracted. That legislation was burdened by amendment after amendment during its parliamentary passage. The Bill was enacted. In a subsequent referendum, however, the majority vote in favour did not reach the 40 per cent. threshold that was required by an amendment agreed to during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
We have learnt two important lessons. First, there is the need to secure the passage of legislation by asking the people of Scotland for a specific mandate to establish a Scottish Parliament, including defined and limited financial powers to vary tax. We believe that the referendum will achieve that. Secondly, there is the need to have the details of our plans settled in advance, rather than their continuing to be developed during the passage of legislation. The White Paper that we shall publish will, I believe, achieve that objective.
We have, I think, learnt a third lesson. It was hard at the time to recognise it, but it is absolutely right to remember it now. The lesson is that a simple majority will suffice. We cannot see obstacles being placed in the path of the Scots and the Welsh making decisions about their own future. This is a chance for change, and it is also about consent and choice.
I am not sure that anyone could argue against the proposal upon which the perspective is based. In his winding-up speech on Second Reading on the Scotland Bill in November 1977, the late John Smith said:
If we pass this Second Reading and move on through the week to take other decisions connected with it, we shall not only improve and strengthen government in Scotland. We shall do a great deal to enhance and revive the unity of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report. 14 November 1977: Vol. 937, c.108.]
There is no more eloquent testament to our plans and ideas than to state again the late John Smith's comments in this place. Our plans are all about improving the government of Scotland while at the same time strengthening the unity of the United Kingdom. That is a powerful message for the House to be sending to every part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Grieve: I recognise from what has been said that the proposals are sincerely desired by many hon. Members, but when will the knock-on effects on the people of England in respect of English-only legislation be addressed? At what point in the discussion will that

happen? Will it happen before the referendum, so that people in Scotland can understand what the impact is likely to be? Will it happen afterwards, or not at all?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. We intend to have the maximum debate in Scotland, in Wales and, indeed, in the House, which is representative of the whole United Kingdom.
In the context of what was said earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), it is important to note that—if we are talking about the Parliament deciding—this Parliament will decide. Scots and Welsh people will be directly affected by the legislation, and we think it right that the pre-legislation referendum should take place there; but every right hon. and hon. Member from every part of the United Kingdom will participate in discussions on the White Paper, and in debates in the Committee stage of the Bill that we are now discussing, as well as debates on the substantive Scotland Bill, on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. There will be ample opportunity to ensure that every Member of Parliament's voice is heard. That, I think, is a fair answer to what I consider a serious question.
It is clear from the path of history that I have described, from the late 19th century to the efforts of John Smith, that considerable progress has been made, but there is still a great deal of unfinished business. The Government are determined to finish it by taking the next step, and the Bill paves the way for that step. It offers a chance for choice, a chance for consent and a chance for change. It is about giving the people of Scotland the democratic right to choose to take another step in the history of the government of Scotland. The chance to debate our detailed proposals will come later. There is no reason for us to deny the Scottish people the opportunity to choose their own destiny.

Mr. Lansley: When he expands on the detail of his proposals, will the Minister explain how he proposes to give a voice to the many Scots and Welsh people who are not resident in Scotland or Wales, but who feel deeply about constitutional change affecting their place of birth, the place of their previous residence or the place of their possible future residence?

Mr. McLeish: I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member will feel passionately about the future of the United Kingdom, the future of Scotland and the future of Wales. This is not an exercise in exclusion; it is an exercise in inclusion. The hon. Gentleman will represent a significant number of constituents who will want to have a say. Our parliamentary democracy, however, is founded on representation, and it seems to me self-evident that, at each stage of this Bill and the substantive Bill, we shall have every opportunity to debate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, in a representative way.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that people whose future place of residence would be affected should be entitled to vote. Theoretically, anyone in the world could in future reside in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman means Sean Connery.

Mr. Salmond: That is quite likely.
Does the Minister have a view on this? According to the Conservative party, it seems that anyone in the world should be able to vote in the referendums in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. McLeish: Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I take pride in my country, and would extend a generous welcome to everyone in the world. The other side of the argument of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, however, is that we are somehow trying to close down the franchise. We are trying to provide the most important franchise, which is residency, and we are taking the local government base as our model. I think that that answers the question.

Mr. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend think that we might well have been able to accommodate some of those considerations if the Bill had extended further, and had included provisions for parts of England and, perhaps, Northern Ireland where it was felt desirable to have some form of devolved government or assembly? Could those people not have been accommodated, perhaps by a statutory instrument? That would have changed the character and speed of legislation. It would also have meant that the high priority that our Government are now giving to devolution for Scotland and Wales would have been, in some respects, subsumed by decentralisation of the rest of the United Kingdom, no matter how desirable it is. That would have met the concerns of the other parts of the United Kingdom, but it would have altered the picture of our ambitions for a decentralised state in the United Kingdom.

Mr. McLeish: I suspect that my hon. Friend is inviting me on a much longer journey than I intend to take tonight.
I should like briefly to comment on the important issue of the referendum and how we, the Government, are attempting to reach out. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East has spoken about consensus. We think that there should be maximum consensus in relation to constitutional change. That is why the inclusive approach that we have adopted is important. We believe that we need to extend the scope of that consensus.
I should like to return to my earlier point about the two debates that now occupy the minds of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom. We have a debate at Westminster, which is reflected in the remarks made in particular by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), which suggests that in a real sense the Scottish Conservative party simply does not exist. Far be it from me to try to reach out over the heads of the leadership of the Conservative party to the Conservatives, but it is salutary to remember that, apart from the debate here, there is a healthier debate going on in Scotland. The six Conservative leadership contenders would be advised to listen a bit more and lecture a bit less until they are sure of their ground.
If we are seeking consensus on a serious measure, it is important for Conservative Members to appreciate that, although they may have lost Conservative seats in

Scotland, in terms of parliamentary representation there are still half a million Conservative voters there who want constructive leadership that reflects the reality and not what that leadership would have liked it to have been if the circumstances had been different on 1 May.
Another consideration relating to the extension of the consensus is how inclusive our campaign should be. The referendum is vital if it is about giving choice to Scots. We need a healthy contribution not only from the Conservatives but from the nationalists. I am slightly encouraged to note from speeches made tonight that the nationalists are having a debate within their own party. [Interruption.] Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is inviting me to be less charitable than I am attempting to be. It is vital that that encouraging debate within the nationalist party should continue.
This Second Reading debate should be sending a powerful message to every Scot, every voter, every political party, every supporter of a political party, every member of a political party, every organisation and every village, town and city that this is an enormous issue for the future of Scotland. It must be taken seriously. History will judge harshly anyone from any organisation who does not embrace and grasp the importance of what we are doing.
After the Bill has gone through the House and we have had an opportunity to put it before the Scottish people, Scots are expecting a serious mood to descend on political parties and others. It is hugely encouraging to note that certain organisations in Scotland are already seeking to rise above party in many respects by trying to reach out in the manner that we have described tonight.
It is important to mention the minds of the few and the hearts of the many. The campaign is finished and perhaps the soundbites will cease, but I am sure that there is no better subject to which one could apply such theory than devolution. There is a powerful sentiment for change in Scotland. Yes, we must discuss the issue and become involved in what for some people has become the theology of devolution, but we have a responsibility to ensure that the success of any measure that we pass should be assessed only according to its impact on ordinary people, whether in Scotland or in Wales. If we are inclusive in our approach and consensual in our attempt to take the matter forward, and if we try to generate a serious debate, especially among Conservative party members in the country and Conservative Members in the House, we will be doing everyone a favour.
This is about empowerment, enrichment and the sense of history. That is the context of it. The history of this honourable place is surely the background for us to be raising the level of the debate. We should not get involved in some of the nit-picking exercises that were prevalent in some hon. Members' speeches; hon. Members on both sides of the House owe it to themselves, to their constituents and to the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure that this debate is conducted seriously.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Whipps Cross Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

10 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. I know that he has considerable abilities and his appointment is well deserved, but he is in a tough job, especially after 18 years of damage to our health service by the Tories. I wish him success. I also congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank Madam Speaker for granting me this debate.
In the election, the most common complaint raised by my constituents was: "Do something about Whipps Cross." [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Would hon. Members leave quietly? An hon. Member is addressing the House.

Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Seven to eight-hour waits in the accident and emergency department are commonplace, with regular reports of 24-hour and longer waits. The impression is that Whipps Cross resembles a war zone, and that local people fear going there. My mailbag bulges with complaints confirming the findings of a table showing that Whipps Cross was second in the whole country for complaints; last year, there were 1,170 complaints.
Local newspapers regularly catalogue the dismal stories of long waits in the A and E department for patients on trolleys in corridors. For elderly people, left without regular nourishment, medical or nursing attention, physical deterioration is rapid, with the risk of pressure sores. There should be fast-track admission for elderly patients directly referred to the hospital by their general practitioner. They should not be repeatedly queuing for admission. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had better be silent. I have heard some comments from Opposition Benches. He is in an Adjournment debate on an important matter.

Mr. Cohen: There has recently been the tragic death of 11-year-old Neil Askew from meningitis. Among the many unsatisfactory aspects surrounding his death is the suspicion that, if he had not endured a wait of many hours before his condition was identified, and if he had been transferred to the specialist hospital more quickly, his life might have been saved.
I draw the Minister's attention in particular to the long waits for treatment, especially on trolleys, that were particularly bad last winter. To prevent a recurrence, I ask him to accept that action needs to be taken before next winter.
In addition to the unacceptably high level of complaints, two separate performance indicators point to persistent chronic under-performance at Whipps Cross. The Government's official national health service performance guide, analysed by The Guardian on 3 July

last year, showed Whipps Cross second from bottom of all acute hospitals in England. Most recently, the Audit Commission report said:
Waiting times are a serious problem at Whipps Cross Hospital, and are the result of a combination of factors. In addition to the increasing workload and inadequate staffing levels, a shortage of specialty beds and problems with current admission policies need to be addressed.
The report found that Whipps had the worst waiting times out of the 17 London and south-east accident and emergency departments that it examined.
Those three indicators show that Whipps Cross is not delivering the same quality services as comparable hospitals elsewhere. That is unfair to local people. Waiting lists for hospital treatment have slipped back to 18 months, and a recent trust report shows that they will slip further. Staff tell me that some patients are actually being kept off the waiting lists. About 14,000 people are waiting for non-emergency operations.
The community health council said:
Health services in Waltham Forest are worse than in other areas.
For example, elderly patients currently have to wait six to nine months for a hearing aid as priority is given to the dying and the over-90s.
Some of the elderly acute wards are in a dreadful state without adequate toilet and washing facilities. The majority of those who die do so in ordinary wards, where the level of palliative care is inadequate.
Whipps Cross hospital is in deep financial crisis. Forest Healthcare NHS trust and Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, which are responsible for that, are in a financial mess. On 7 May, a report on the deficit said that the
health authority is in a position where it has an underlying recurrent deficit of £3 million … It could be exposed to a £6.5 million deficit".
The trust overspent by about £4 million.
On top of that, a £10 million reduction to Redbridge and Waltham Forest is proposed in the latest unfair funding formula adopted under the Tories. Last week's Wanstead and Woodford Guardian and Waltham Forest Guardian reported a "£20 million black hole" in health finances, quoting David Avis, the health authority's director of finance. The Ilford Recorder lists £13.1 million of debts on the health authority's loans.
I and fellow Members of Parliament for the area, some of whom wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have met local health officials month after month and year after year, only to be told that things are under control and getting better. Only Nick Leeson could believe that.
The management is in a state of permanent crisis. The top managers are not on top of the situation, and are disinclined to take responsibility. Middle managers struggle to cope with costly, repeated reorganisations. Some staff have had to apply three times in three years for their own jobs. Expensive outside consultants have been used, but their recommendations have not always been implemented, and then new consultants are appointed.
The trade union talks of "destabilisation" of the work force, which puts the blame on the staff who have left and creates a climate of fear so that employees cannot speak their mind. The hospital staff, to whom I pay tribute for keeping the service going in awful circumstances, have been treated unfairly. Their morale is at rock bottom.
The privatisation contract with Tarmac Servicemaster, for cleaning, portering, transport and switchboard services, has been disastrous. There has been a failure properly to appreciate basic hospital hygiene. For example, initially one mop was used to clean toilets, wards, treatment rooms, sluices and kitchens—what a risk of cross-infection and MRSA, or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. This is the madness of privatisation, which ends up costing a lot more. I have photographs to pass to the Minister showing the shambles of that contract.
New Labour's election promise was that the internal market will go and that 100,000 more patients will be treated by cutting £100 million from the bureaucracy budget. We will also act on the scandal of long waits on trolleys. From the case that I have outlined, I am sure that the Minister will agree that Whipps Cross sorely needs the benefit of that programme.
There are huge funding deficits in the health authorities and trusts across London. I ask the Minister to re-examine swiftly the capitation formula, of which a quarter is not weighted for deprivation. A full weighting for deprivation is recommended by the Select Committee on Health, and by the King's Fund. Out of 402 boroughs, Waltham Forest is 23rd from the bottom and Redbridge is in the bottom third, according to the Jarman indicators of deprivation.
The health authority and the trust have adopted a joint strategic change programme with transitional funding of £4.4 million, dependent on cash efficiency savings of £3.7 million being achieved. Because of the scale of the deficit, however, the programme will simply spread the debts and cuts over a number of years. As the Audit Commission confirmed, new disinvestments—many of which are desperately short-term—will exacerbate the appalling problem of delays in the accident and emergency ward.
A recent trust report on acute services recommended a reduction of 183 posts and 27 beds, and downsizing theatre sessions by 10 per cent. On 7 May, Lister ward—the female surgical ward—closed, despite the trust's assurances in April to the Waltham Forest Guardian that no changes would be made in the 1997–98 financial year. Cost-effective programmes, such as interim care, have been abandoned, and have resulted in higher readmission levels. Quality of care, best practice and good ideas have been jeopardised.
Currently available money could be better spent, and wasteful spending on inefficient private contractors and consultants must be ended. The joint strategic change programme must be drastically improved, because it is currently the only game in town. The local health authority and trust managements have failed to take effective action and assume responsibility for the various on-going crises and for the overall crisis.
Department of Health monitoring and support is necessary. I ask the Minister to scrutinise and reorganise the structure and personnel of the trust and the health authority. There should be local authority staff representation.
The health authority and the trust have failed to agree on this year's contracts, in which there is a £6.5 million gap. Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority costs more than £4.8 million per annum, primarily in managing

the internal market. That sum could be slimmed down considerably, in line with Labour policy. Management of patient care is our primary objective.
Help is also required in recruiting key staff—particularly A and E consultants, nurses and midwives—to work at Whipps Cross hospital. The Government could play a role in reshaping funding, and in encouraging staff to go where they are most needed.
I am confident that the Minister agrees that there must be widespread and sustained improvement at Whipps Cross hospital. Its users—my constituents—deserve better, and I am sure that they will benefit from Labour's new health policies.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your new position. I am also very grateful to have an opportunity to say something about Whipps Cross hospital, because many of my constituents depend on it for services in some specialisms.
Over the past five years, some of my constituents have waited 30 hours in hospital, and others have had operations cancelled several times. It is quite clear, however, that the situation facing both trusts—Forest Healthcare NHS trust, at Whipps Cross hospital; and Redbridge Healthcare NHS trust, at King George hospital, which is in my constituency and within the Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority area—is now very serious.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) mentioned last week's reports in the local press. The Ilford Recorder reported a £13 million deficit, and explained the implications of that deficit for waiting times, cancelled operations and care for local people. It is perhaps ironic—given the leadership of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority—that, immediately after the general election, the authority announced that it had a problem and that it could not set a budget for this year until July, thereby deferring everything for two months.
It is interesting that the authority's management did not reveal the problem in April, or in any of the many meetings that we have had with them in recent months and years. They told us that us that everything was under control, and that any problems were completely the fault of the hospitals' inefficiencies.
The problems are deep-seated, and they need radical solutions—one of which will be to restructure the health authority and to clean out many of the people working for it, so that we can replace them with people who are more responsive to local communities and to the needs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead.
I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will recognise the wider issues that threaten our part of north-east London, one of which is the potential knock-on consequences for Whipps Cross and King George of the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch hospital. I believe that all those issues are linked, and that it will be disastrous for us all if the Tory closure programme for London hospitals continues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for allowing me to make this contribution.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for allowing me to take part briefly in this debate.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will hear from many hon. Members throughout the country about problems in their local hospitals. It is, however, important to emphasise that I and all the Members of Parliament for the area around Whipps Cross—this is true irrespective of party—believe that there are particular problems in this trust and this district health authority.
I do not trust the league tables we have had over the past few years. They measure things that are measured easily, such as how long people wait before their name and address are taken in accident and emergency. On that basis, Whipps Cross meets the patients charter standard, although we know that there are immense waiting times. What the tables do not, of course, measure is quality of outcome, and there are many concerns about Whipps Cross in those terms. Whatever the league tables measure, there is something wrong when a hospital is at the bottom of every league table except the league table of complaints, in which it is up at the top.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Leyton and Wanstead have mentioned the problem of the budget being deferred and of the deficit, so I do not want to go over that point. One of the most important points, however, for Members of Parliament has been the difficulty we have all had in trying to establish exactly what is going on. As a result of the internal market, the trust and the district health authority blame one another, and, from one meeting to the next, it is extremely difficult to pin down what has happened to the budget. Horrendous figures suddenly appear about which we have not been told before.
There is a strong case for looking at the question of openness—at the way in which budgets are decided, when they are decided and how open that process is. There is no doubt about what is happening to services, irrespective of the true figures for the deficit.
I know that the trust has historical problems. The original application for the trust to be set up was a disgrace. With such financial information, it would have been impossible to borrow anything from a bank, yet, on the basis of that totally inadequate information, a large chunk of national health service assets was handed over to the trust. I also believe that creating a trust covering not just a hospital but all the services in the area was a big mistake. All that is history, but it has left the present management, who are making serious efforts to address the problems, with an impossible job.
I ask the Minister, when he looks at solutions for the hospital and at the review of the health service in London, to consider special assistance, particularly special management assistance, for trusts that are having such problems.
I heard yesterday that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has decided that one of the schools in the Waltham Forest area should be on the list of those that are to be the subject of special measures. For most of my constituents, putting Whipps Cross hospital rather than a very small school on such a list would be of far greater interest. We need to consider how we can take hold of hospitals, trusts and district health authorities that

are clearly failing their communities, and do something to turn them around. On that there would be unanimous support from local Members of Parliament.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): It is a pleasure to reply to the debate, and to congratulate you, somewhat belatedly, on taking up your new post, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for his kind remarks, and the courteous way in which he presented his concerns. I know that he takes a keen interest in local health service issues, and that he and my other hon. Friends who have spoken this evening have some pressing concerns about the state of the NHS in their part of London.
What I have heard this evening is saddening, but perhaps not surprising. It shows how much needs to be done to rebuild the health service in this city and throughout the country. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend's positive comments about the service provided by the dedicated staff who work so hard at Whipps Cross hospital. The problems faced by the local health service are no reflection on such people, who work tirelessly to provide patient care.
Whipps Cross is not alone in facing such difficulties. I know from the discussion that I have had with many colleagues during my brief time as a Minister that such problems are repeated all too often in hospitals up and down the country. The legacy that we inherit is profoundly challenging.
As my hon. Friend took us through the litany of problems at Whipps Cross, I was struck by two trends in his remarks: the unnecessary pain and suffering caused to vulnerable individuals by problems in the national health service, and the extent to which improving the situation finds common ground with our manifesto commitments for restoring our national health service and the work that we have already started to put things right.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's serious concern about the financial plight of Forest Healthcare NHS trust. Despite the staffing reductions that he described, and other measures to contain costs and improve efficiency, it is a real concern that the trust is ending the financial year 1996–97 with a forecast £4.4 million deficit. Of equal concern is the continuing gap between the trust and the health authority in the current financial year.
A joint strategic change programme has been agreed between the trust and the health authority to redress the deficit over two years. The plan includes further efficiencies and cost reductions, but it is not all bad news. For example, there are programmes in place to improve accident and emergency services by recruiting additional consultants. Plans are in train to deal with the frail elderly population when they enter hospital. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome those developments.
The quality and timeliness of the care delivered to patients are crucial. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some reassurance from the fact that improvements in


patient quality standards are a declared principle of the Government—a principle shared with the programme being implemented by the trust. I shall ensure that the NHS executive monitors progress on the programme extremely carefully.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but I should like to make a very brief intervention on a non-party political basis as one of the Members for the area who uses Whipps Cross hospital.
I associate myself with the request of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that the executive examine the problem. Before the election, I had conversations with the Minister's predecessor about this. If he could ensure that and publish the results, at least to establish some confidence locally that things are being done, it would help tremendously to improve relations with local people.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman raises a pressing point about local confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made clear, there are many real concerns in the community, particularly after what happened last winter. I intend to keep a close eye on developments, particularly the implementation of the change programme which I shall ask the NHS executive to undertake on my behalf.
I understand that financial management has been a weakness within the trust. I hope that it is now being addressed seriously by the new director of finance, who was appointed about eight months ago.
A major challenge for Forest Healthcare, and for the NHS, is to meet the demand for emergency care, while at the same time reducing waiting lists for planned operations. At times, Whipps Cross was stretched to the limit last winter, as my hon. Friend graphically illustrated.
I appreciate the call from various quarters, including from my hon. Friend this evening, for additional resources to meet the growing demands and expectations at Whipps Cross and other hospitals. Frankly, had money not been squandered on bureaucracy and the internal market, we would not be in this position. Inevitably, it will take time for the resources to be released as we undo the damage, but in due course there will be more money for front-line patient care.
In the meantime, Forest Healthcare has established a major project to improve its ability to respond to the pressures of next winter. It has also confirmed that meeting the demand for emergency care remains a top priority, and it continues to negotiate with Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority about the funding required to reduce waiting lists.
I give hon. Members on both sides of the House an undertaking that I shall keep a very close eye on developments. I hope to see satisfactory plans in place before too long to avoid the problems faced by patients last winter.
More generally, the key to rebuilding the health service is not another wholesale reform, which is the last thing the NHS needs, but taking positive, progressive steps towards ending the absurd internal market that we have put up with for far too long. We are already taking action on bureaucracy, fair waiting and ending the endless paperchase. We must make sure that a greater proportion of every pound spent on the national health service goes towards patient care rather than bureaucracy. We shall also be looking at the distribution of resources to ensure that they fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible.
I know that my hon. Friend's health authority has some concerns about the weighted capitation formula. It feels strongly that, compared with some other authorities, it is not fairly funded for the services it has to provide, when variations in local pay and prices are taken into account.
The work that the authority is putting in hand to grapple with this issue may well be useful within our overall aim of ensuring a fair and equitable distribution of resources throughout the NHS. I am sure that my hon. Friend will encourage the authority to work alongside the NHS executive in that endeavour.
In conclusion, through no fault of the doctors, nurses and other staff at Whipps Cross, who are as dedicated and devoted as everyone else who works in the NHS, the service provided by the hospital does not always live up to the standards we had in mind when we set up the NHS almost 50 years ago.
We are in the process of restoring the NHS. The problems at Whipps Cross so eloquently described by my hon. Friends speak volumes about the state of the NHS and of other hospitals in the city of London and elsewhere in the country. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that we shall release details of our planned review of London's health services in due course. We shall certainly look into the concerns that they have expressed this evening.
The changes that we intend to make to the health service will be properly thought through and tested, and will be introduced sensitively. They will ensure that hospitals such as Whipps Cross will be able to provide a proper health care service in tune with our founding principles for the NHS.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.